This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-440
entitled 'Unemployment Insurance Trust Funds: Long-standing State
Financing Policies Have Increased Risk of Insolvency' which was
released on May 6, 2010.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Income Security and Family
Support, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
April 2010:
Unemployment Insurance Trust Funds:
Long-standing State Financing Policies Have Increased Risk of
Insolvency:
GAO-10-440:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-440, a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on
Income Security and Family Support, Committee on Ways and Means, House
of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The federal-state unemployment insurance (UI) program relies on state
trust funds to hold enough reserves to meet benefit needs during
economic downturns. The sufficiency of such “forward funding” has been
a policy concern for decades, particularly during the recent
recession, which has caused very high unemployment rates. While the
economy added jobs in March 2010, unemployment remains very high and
has continued to rise in most states, suggesting that state UI
programs will continue to face serious financial challenges for at
least the near future.
This report (1) describes the current condition of state UI trust
funds, (2) highlights policies or practices that have contributed to
their conditions, and (3) identifies options for improving UI forward
funding in the future. To address these questions, GAO analyzed
statistics from the Department of Labor, reviewed applicable laws and
regulations, interviewed state UI representatives and UI experts, and
synthesized GAO’s and others’ findings to present policy options.
What GAO Found:
By any measure, state UI trust funds are in historically poor
financial condition. As of April 1, 2010, 34 of the 53 state trust
funds have outstanding loans totaling $38.9 billion from the federal
government to pay benefits (see figure), and as of the end of 2009 no
state had enough reserves to cover 12 months of benefits at
historically high rates. Aggregate reserves net of loans measured -
$15.4 billion as of the end of 2009, the lowest level in the program’s
history. Despite UI tax rates that are expected to rise significantly
in many states in 2010, the Department of Labor projects that net UI
reserves will remain negative for several years.
Long-standing UI tax policies and practices in many states over 3
decades have eroded trust fund reserves, leaving states in a weak
position prior to the recent recession. While benefits over this
period have remained largely flat relative to wages, employer tax
rates have declined. Specifically, most state taxable wage bases have
not kept up with increases in wages, and many employers pay very low
tax rates on these wage bases.
Options to improve state UI trust fund financial conditions include
raising and indexing the taxable wage base under the Federal
Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), which could induce many states to raise
and index their own bases, and reducing the number of both employers
paying very low rates and those that pay less in UI taxes than
benefits paid to their former workers. Other options include adjusting
state tax rates more frequently; raising solvency targets before
lowering rates; setting additional conditions to receive interest-free
federal loans; and raising interest credits for well funded trust
funds. Now is the time to consider changes to policies to improve the
long-term financial structure of UI trust funds.
Figure: Financial Condition of State UI Trust Funds:
[Refer to PDF for image: map of the U.S., with associated data]
Map depicts states in the following categories:
Status of UI trust funds: States with relatively weak trust funds
(loans outstanding as of April 1, 2010): 35 states.
Status of UI trust funds: States with relatively strong trust funds
(at least 1 percent of annual UI-covered wages, as of fourth quarter
2009): 14 states.
Note: States highlighted in white did not have an outstanding loan as
of April 1, 2010, and had trust funds with less than 1 percent of
wages in reserves as of fourth quarter 2009.
Source: Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor.
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
The Congress should begin to consider options to improve trust fund
solvency, including raising the FUTA taxable wage base from its
current level of $7,000 and indexing this base to average annual
wages. GAO received comments from the Department of Labor that
generally concur with our findings and conclusions.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-440] or key
components. For more information, contact Andrew Sherrill at (202) 512-
7215 or sherrilla@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
State UI Trust Funds Are at Historically Weak Levels, with Most
Requiring Federal Loans to Pay Benefits:
Long-standing State UI Policies and Practices Have Led to Trust Fund
Vulnerability:
Among Policy Options, Revenue-Related Reforms May Hold Key to
Improving UI Trust Fund Solvency:
Conclusions:
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Unemployment Insurance Measures in the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act:
Appendix III: Major Characteristics of State UI Programs, as of March
2010:
Appendix IV: Various UI Program Statistics:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Labor:
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Summary of Major UI Federal Accounts:
Table 2: State UI Trust Fund Financial Conditions as of End of 2007
vs. End of 2009:
Table 3: Key Trust Fund and Employment Statistics for Last Four U.S.
Recessions:
Table 4: UI Financial Statistics, States with Indexed Taxable Wage
Bases vs. Other States, 1979-2008:
Table 5: Distribution of Minimum and Maximum Statutory UI Tax Rates by
State, 1978 to 2008:
Table 6: Policy Options for Improving UI Funding:
Table 7: States with Loans from the Federal Unemployment Account, as
of December 31, 2009, and April 1, 2010:
Table 8: UI Contributions, Benefits, and Reserves as a Percentage of
Total UI-Eligible Wages, 1979-2008:
Table 9: UI-taxable Wages as a Percentage of Total UI-eligible Wages,
States with Indexed Taxable Wage Base vs. Other States, 1979-2008:
Table 10: States with UI Solvency or Social Cost Taxes as of 2010:
Figures:
Figure 1: Financial Condition of State UI Trust Funds:
Figure 2: UI Contributions, Benefits, and Net Reserves, 1979-2008:
Figure 3: UI Taxable Wage Bases, 2010:
Figure 4: Comparison of UI-taxable/total Wage Ratio, States with
Indexed Taxable Wage Bases vs. Other States, 1979-2008:
Figure 5: Distribution of ARRA UI Modernization Incentive Grants, as
of Mar. 26, 2010:
Abbreviations:
AHCM: average high cost multiple:
ARRA: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009:
CBO: Congressional Budget Office:
CRS: Congressional Research Service:
DOL: Department of Labor:
EB: Federal-State Extended Benefits Program:
ES: Employment Services:
ESAA: Employment Security Administration Account:
ETA: Employment and Training Administration:
EUC: Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program of 2008:
EUCA: Extended Unemployment Compensation Account:
FECA: The Federal Employees Compensation Account:
FUA: Federal Unemployment Account:
FUTA: Federal Unemployment Tax Act:
HCM: high cost multiple:
IUR: insured unemployment rate:
UI: unemployment insurance:
UTF: Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
April 14, 2010:
The Honorable Jim McDermott:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support:
Committee on Ways and Means:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The recession that began in December 2007 has resulted in the worst
labor market conditions in the United States since at least the early
1980s, if not since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The federal-
state unemployment insurance (UI) program provides temporary
assistance to unemployed workers by replacing a portion of lost wages.
States maintain reserves, funded through employer taxes, in trust
funds, out of which they pay UI benefits. However, the severity and
length of the recent recession, and the slow pace of recovery, have
placed a heavy demand on state UI trust funds, and many states have
needed loans from the federal government to continue to pay benefits.
While preliminary data showed that the economy added the most jobs in
any month in 3 years during March 2010, unemployment remains very high
and has continued to increase in most states, suggesting that state UI
programs will continue to face serious financial challenges for at
least the near future.
Concerns over the adequacy of UI trust fund levels are not new. For
the last 3 decades and particularly during prior recessions, there has
been concern that some states were not sufficiently funding their
programs. Two national commissions, one in the early 1980s and the
other in the mid-1990s, have examined UI financing, as did GAO in
1988, 1990, and 1993. Each of these studies raised concerns that long-
term state practices in UI financing have been insufficient to fulfill
the goals of the UI program--to ease individual financial hardship and
stabilize the economy in periods of unemployment.
This report (1) describes the current condition of state UI trust
funds; (2) highlights policies or practices that have contributed to
their condition; and (3) identifies options for improving UI forward
funding in the future.[Footnote 1]
To address these issues, we reviewed UI state statistical data for
fiscal years 1979 to 2009 from the Department of Labor's (DOL)
Employment and Training Administration (ETA). With these data, we
analyzed various measures of individual UI state trust fund levels
that illustrate the condition of state trust funds. We also reviewed
applicable federal and state laws, regulations and guidance. We
reviewed reports by GAO, DOL, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO),
the Congressional Research Service (CRS), public policy organizations,
and conducted interviews with DOL officials and UI policy experts from
the business, labor, academic, and public policy communities. To
illustrate key factors affecting UI funding in states, we conducted in-
depth interviews with UI program officials from 10 states that
represent a range of geographic locations, economic conditions, and UI
trust fund reserve levels. We supplemented these interviews with
information from related state and federal reports. Finally, to
identify options for improving UI forward funding, we reviewed past
conclusions and recommendations in reports by GAO, DOL, CBO, CRS, four
past government advisory councils on unemployment compensation, and
public policy organizations, and supplemented this analysis with our
own conclusions derived from our analysis of UI state statistical data.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2009 through April 2010
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
The Social Security Act of 1935 established the UI program.[Footnote
2] The primary objectives of UI are to provide temporary, partial
compensation for lost earnings of individuals who become unemployed
through no fault of their own, with some exceptions, and to stabilize
the economy during economic downturns.[Footnote 3] The UI program is a
federal-state partnership. Although federal law sets certain
requirements for the program, each state designs its own program
within the framework of the federal requirements. State and federal
taxes on employers fund UI benefits and administrative costs. The
ETA's Office of Unemployment Insurance oversees the states'
implementation and administration of their UI programs.[Footnote 4]
UI Federal and State Requirements:
Federal law sets forth broad coverage provisions for the categories of
workers that must be covered by the program, some benefit provisions,
the federal tax base and rate, and administrative requirements, such
as how states will repay UI trust fund loans. Within the framework
established by federal law, states can determine key elements of their
UI programs, such as eligibility/disqualification provisions, the
benefit amount, and the amount of taxes that employers must pay.
UI Eligibility:
States use varying methods to determine eligibility for a claimant to
receive UI benefits, but all states set a base period of wages and
employment on which to determine a worker's benefit rights, the
benefit year during which UI may be collected, and the maximum amount
of regular UI that a worker may receive in a benefit year. States
generally base benefits on wages for work in covered employment over a
12-month period, and most states currently pay regular benefits for up
to 26 weeks.[Footnote 5] Extended benefits (EB) are provided to
workers who have exhausted regular unemployment insurance benefits
during periods of high unemployment.[Footnote 6] The EB program is
financed in approximately shares by the states and the federal
government. The basic EB program provides up to 13 additional weeks of
benefits. Some states have also enacted a voluntary program to pay up
to 7 additional weeks (20 weeks maximum) of EB during periods of
extremely high unemployment. This program is in addition to and
differs from other temporary emergency UI measures passed by the
Congress in recent recessions, such as the Emergency Unemployment
Compensation (EUC) program enacted in 2008[Footnote 7] and provisions
in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009.[Footnote
8]
UI Financing:
The UI program was designed to be forward funded and self-financed by
states, with each trust fund building up reserves from employer taxes
during periods of economic expansion in order to pay UI benefits
during economic downturns. Because unemployment can vary substantially
during a business cycle, it is important that states build sufficient
trust funds to remain solvent during recessionary times. The program
is financed primarily by taxes levied on employers.[Footnote 9] Each
state sets UI tax rates to finance regular UI benefits. In addition,
employers pay a Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) tax. The FUTA tax
on employers is 6.2 percent on the first $7,000 of each employee's
annual pay.[Footnote 10] Employers in states whose UI programs comply
with federal requirements receive a tax rate credit of 5.4 percent,
resulting in an effective rate as low as 0.8 percent, or a maximum of
$56 per worker per year.[Footnote 11] The FUTA tax is used to fund:
(1) federal and state UI administration costs;[Footnote 12] (2) the
federal share of EB; (3) Title XII loans to state trust funds when
they cannot pay benefits;[Footnote 13] (4) benefits under federal
supplemental and emergency programs; (5) labor exchange services,
[Footnote 14] employment and training for veterans; and (6) some labor
market information programs.
States choose both a taxable wage base, the annual earnings per worker
on which employers pay UI taxes, and statutory tax rates that apply to
the base. In order for employers in their state to qualify for the
full FUTA tax credit, each state's taxable wage base must at least
equal the FUTA wage base (currently $7,000, the level since 1983), and
statutory rates must be experience rated--that is, varying with an
employer's layoff record. Experience ratings provide reduced rates for
employers with fewer layoffs and increased rates for those with more
layoffs. Tax rate assignment may include "socialized" costs that are
not charged to individual employers, such as costs of benefits to
employees of firms that went out of business but did not have
sufficient reserves to pay UI taxes or benefits that are charged to a
specific employer but are not fully recovered from that firm in tax
revenue.[Footnote 15]
The Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund (UTF) in the U.S. Treasury
consists of 53 state accounts, including one each for the District of
Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico, plus 6 federal accounts
that are dedicated for special purposes. Federal taxes go into the
Employment Security Administration Account (ESAA), the Extended
Unemployment Compensation Account (EUCA), and the Federal Unemployment
Account (FUA), and state taxes go into their individual state accounts
(see table 1).
Table 1: Summary of Major UI Federal Accounts:
Name: ESAA;
Description: Finances the administration of the state UI and
employment services (ES) programs.
Name: EUCA;
Description: Reimburses states for federal share of extended benefits.
Permanent extended benefits program provides up to 13 weeks of
additional UI benefits.
Name: FUA;
Description: Provides loans to insolvent state trust funds.
Name: The Federal Employees Compensation Account (FECA);
Description: Finances benefit payments to former federal and military
employees.
Source: ETA, Comparison of State Unemployment Insurance Laws, January
1, 2009.
Note: In addition, there are two accounts related to the Railroad
Retirement Board that pay UI benefits to railroad workers, the only
occupational group covered under a separate UI system. They are
financed by railroad contributions and administered by the Railroad
Retirement Board.
[End of table]
When the ESAA, EUCA, and FUA accounts reach prescribed statutory
ceilings, the excess funds are transferred to individual state
accounts under the Reed Act.[Footnote 16] DOL bases each state's share
of Reed Act funds on the state's proportional share of FUTA taxable
wages. Federal law restricts states to use Reed Act distributions, the
mechanism by which the federal government gives surplus cash back to
states, only to cover the cost of state benefits and administration of
state UI and ES programs. A state must have a specific appropriation
from its legislature in order to use its share of the Reed Act funds
for administrative expenses.[Footnote 17] There have been eight Reed
Act distributions since 1956, most recently in 2002; the Congress has
raised the Reed Act's statutory ceilings that trigger the distribution
of the surplus funds several times.[Footnote 18]
Almost all states measure their trust fund balances and make tax rate
changes once per year.[Footnote 19] The majority of states have trust
fund balance targets written into their state law, with triggers built
in to adjust the tax rates according to the state's trust fund
balance. According to DOL, most states impose higher tax rates when
their UI balances are low and lower rates when their balances are
high. Nearly half of states with targets base them on a percentage of
their payrolls or specific dollar amounts. For example, New York
requires the equivalent of at least 5 percent of its annual payrolls
in its trust fund to enact its lowest tax schedule; the highest
schedule applies when the trust fund is less than zero percent of the
payroll. Other states have trust fund targets that are based on other
measurements of trust fund levels, such as state-determined experience
or adjustment factors and some states do not have specific UI trust
fund goals in their laws. For example, 4 of the 53 states have laws
that authorize their labor agencies to set the tax rates. State trust
funds are credited with interest on their balances.
As UI is forward-funded, states collect trust fund reserves in advance
to pay benefits. However, during exceptional periods when states
exhaust their UI reserves, they may borrow from the federal
government. States can, under certain conditions, borrow interest
free, as long as the loan is repaid by September 30 of the year of the
loan (a "cash flow" loan).[Footnote 20] If a state has an outstanding
loan balance on January 1 for 2 consecutive years, the full amount of
the loan must be repaid by November 10 of the second year, or
employers in that state lose 0.3 percent of the FUTA tax credit each
year there is an unpaid balance. For example, if a state borrows to
pay UI benefits and has an outstanding loan balance on the second
subsequent January 1, the FUTA tax credit falls from 5.4 to 5.1
percent, and employers' effective FUTA rate jumps from 0.8 percent to
1.1 percent. However, states with outstanding loans can still seek
relief from these loan provisions. If state trust funds meet specific
requirements, such as not taking any action during the previous year
that would diminish the solvency of their trust fund, the reduction in
the FUTA credit may be capped.[Footnote 21] States that have an
average total unemployment rate of 13.5 percent or more[Footnote 22]
can also delay payment of interest for a grace period of up to 9
months.[Footnote 23] Some states have also chosen to secure loans in
the private bond market, using the proceeds from private loans to
repay borrowing from the federal government, and then levying higher
payroll taxes on employers in subsequent years to repay the private
loans.
Measures of UI Solvency:
Measures of UI solvency are expressed as a percentage of wages,
typically total annual wages earned by employees who are potentially
eligible for receiving UI benefits (or "UI-covered wages").[Footnote
24] ETA reports reserve ratios, or UI trust fund levels as a
percentage of total annual statewide wages, as well as high cost
multiple (HCM), which divides the reserve ratio by the high cost rate,
the highest historical ratio of benefits to wages for a 12-month
period in that state. An HCM of 1.0 corresponds to sufficient reserves
to pay benefits at the high cost rate for 1 year. A similar measure is
the average high cost multiple (AHCM), which divides a trust fund's
reserve ratio by the average high cost rate, which is the average of
the 3 highest calendar year benefit cost rates in the last 20 years or
in the period covering the last 3 recessions, if longer. An AHCM of
1.0 is the target level of solvency recommended by the Advisory
Council on Unemployment Compensation and is inherent in DOL's draft
regulations on cash-flow loans.
Past Studies of UI Trust Fund Solvency:
UI reform, particularly with respect to financing the program, has
been a longstanding (albeit sporadic) policy concern for the federal
government, state workforce agencies that administer the program, and
advocacy organizations. A 1980 national commission expressed concerns
about the "financial footing" of the program,[Footnote 25] while a
1988 GAO report raised questions about the effect of long-term UI
financing inadequacy on future benefit eligibility.[Footnote 26] A
1988 study of the program by the CRS highlighted the problem of
insufficient financing.[Footnote 27] In addition, a 1993 GAO report
found that the ability of the UI program to stabilize the economy had
diminished,[Footnote 28] and a 1994-96 Advisory Council on
Unemployment Compensation called for a stronger role for the federal
government to promote UI forward funding.[Footnote 29]
State UI Trust Funds Are at Historically Weak Levels, with Most
Requiring Federal Loans to Pay Benefits:
By any measure, UI trust funds nationwide are in historically poor
financial condition. As of the fourth quarter of 2009, reserves in
state trust funds totaled $11.1 billion, lower than any end-of-year
total (inflation adjusted) in the program's history and down sharply
from the $30.0 billion in aggregate reserves at the end of 2008.
Reserve levels look even weaker when one considers that fund levels
are buoyed by federal loans, which surged during 2009 and continue to
grow. As of April 1, 2010, 34 state trust funds had taken out federal
loans totaling $38.9 billion (see figure 1); this total loan balance
is up almost 50 percent since just December 31, 2009. By comparison,
24 states required loans during the recession of the early 1980s,
during which unemployment nationally approached 11 percent. Aggregate
net reserves (reserves less loans) as of December 31, 2009, measured -
$15.4 billion, the first such deficit since the end of 1983 and the
lowest level in the program's history. As a result of the huge outflow
of money to state trust funds, the FUA has had to borrow $33.9 billion
from the general fund as of April 7, 2010; the Department of Labor
projects FUA borrowing to more than double by 2012.
Figure 1: Financial Condition of State UI Trust Funds:
[Refer to PDF for image: U.S. map]
Status of UI trust funds: States with relatively weak trust funds
(loans outstanding as of April 1, 2010): 35 states:
Alabama:
Arizona:
Arkansas:
California:
Colorado:
Connecticut:
Delaware:
Florida:
Georgia:
Hawaii:
Idaho:
Illinois:
Indiana:
Kansas:
Kentucky:
Maryland:
Massachusetts:
Michigan:
Minnesota:
Missouri:
Nevada:
New Hampshire:
New Jersey:
New York:
North Carolina:
Ohio:
Pennsylvania:
Rhode Island:
South Carolina:
South Dakota:
Texas:
Vermont:
Virgin Islands:
Virginia:
Wisconsin.
Status of UI trust funds: States with relatively strong trust funds
(at least 1 percent of annual UI-covered wages, as of fourth quarter
2009): 14 states:
Alaska:
District of Columbia:
Louisiana:
Maine:
Mississippi:
Montana:
New Mexico:
North Dakota:
Oklahoma:
Oregon:
Puerto Rico:
Utah:
Washington:
Wyoming.
Source: Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor.
Note: States highlighted in white did not have an outstanding loan as
of April 1, 2010, and had trust funds with less than 1 percent of
wages in reserves as of fourth quarter 2009. For more data, see
appendix IV, table 7.
[End of figure]
As of the fourth quarter of 2009, no state had a HCM as high as 1.0
(which would indicate sufficient reserves to pay benefits at
historically high rates for 12 months), and only 14 states had
reserves of at least 1 percent of wages (see figure 1). Each state
trust fund had a lower balance as of the end of 2009 than as of the
end of 2007, near the start of the recent recession in December 2007
(see table 2). In aggregate, state trust fund balances declined by
$53.6 billion over this period.
Table 2: State UI Trust Fund Financial Conditions as of End of 2007
vs. End of 2009:
Alaska:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $331,214;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.78;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $298,439;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: 0.64.
Alabama:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $410,640;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.33;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): -$137,148;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: N.A.
Arkansas:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $151,132;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.18;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): -$208,639;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: N.A.
Arizona:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $990,481;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.44;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $168,909;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: 0.08.
California:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $2,533,133;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.18;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): -$5,873,815;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: N.A.
Colorado:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $630,397;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.59;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $64,579;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: 0.06.
Connecticut:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $598,111;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.23;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): -$140,878;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: N.A.
District of Columbia:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $400,275;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.80;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $329,696;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: 0.66.
Delaware:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $174,156;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.43;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $38,828;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: 0.10.
Florida:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $2,203,889;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.46;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): -$816,194;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: N.A.
Georgia:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $1,281,787;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.42;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): -$51,955;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: N.A.
Hawaii:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $556,334;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 1.50;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $130,687;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: 0.35.
Iowa:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $740,178;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.69;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): v383,905;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: 0.36.
Idaho:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $196,048;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.35;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): -$103,659;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: N.A.
Illinois:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $1,801,983;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.30;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): -$1,159,558;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: N.A.
Indiana:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $306,787;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.20;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): -$1,469,630;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: N.A.
Kansas:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $637,983;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.71;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $119,794;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: 0.14.
Kentucky:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $230,766;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.16;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): -$566,263;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: N.A.
Louisiana:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $1,444,768;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.82;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $1,144,195;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: 0.63.
Massachusetts:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $1,290,297;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.28;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $234,162;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: 0.05.
Maryland:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $1,016,659;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.52;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $135,304;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: 0.07.
Maine:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $479,164;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 1.12;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $335,162;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: 0.82.
Michigan:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): -$103,489;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: N.A.;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): -$3,044,026;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: N.A.
Minnesota;
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $545,587;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.30;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): -$271,487;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: N.A.
Missouri:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $113,246;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.07;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): -$460,468;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: N.A.
Mississippi:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $727,918;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 1.32;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $469,903;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: 0.89.
Montana:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $280,512;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.82;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $166,822;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: 0.50.
North Carolina:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $394,426;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.13;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): -$1,587,455;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: N.A.
North Dakota:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $134,442;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.72;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $98,997;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: 0.47.
Nebraska:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $278,865;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.74;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $167,832;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: 0.44.
New Hampshire:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): v240,422;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.43;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $17,905;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: 0.04.
New Jersey:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $650,449;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.11;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): -$894,641;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: N.A.
New Mexico:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $575,524;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 1.58;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $281,026;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: 0.79.
Nevada:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $793,215;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.63;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): -$85,593;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: N.A.
New York:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $429,723;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.04;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): -$2,118,436;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: N.A.
Ohio:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $444,530;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.09;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): -$1,692,542;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: N.A.
Oklahoma:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $831,388;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 1.42;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $488,513;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: 0.80.
Oregon:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $1,933,225;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 1.14;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $1,050,277;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: 0.65.
Pennsylvania:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $1,545,652;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.25;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): -$1,754,681;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: N.A.
Puerto Rico:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $529,260;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.73;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $397,376;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: 0.56.
Rhode Island:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $159,901;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.25;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): -$125,592;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: N.A.
South Carolina:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $199,183;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.13;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): -$682,073;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: N.A.
South Dakota:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $24,680;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.25;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): -$6,510;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: N.A.
Tennessee:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $566,161;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.30;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $167,600;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: 0.10.
Texas:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $1,774,694;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.40;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): -$1,282,382;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: N.A.
Utah:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $842,680;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 1.15;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $492,923;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: 0.71.
Virginia:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $775,202;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.44;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): -$53,882;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: N.A.
Virgin Islands:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $22,287;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.68;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): -$7,577;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: N.A.
Vermont:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $177,613;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.72;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $23,038;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: 0.10.
Washington:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $3,794,156;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.98;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $2,596,130;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: 0.67.
Wisconsin:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $592,228;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.23;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): -$895,714;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: N.A.
West Virginia:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $244,786;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.35;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $123,859;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: 0.17.
Wyoming:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $243,500;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.95;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $155,048;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: 0.60.
Total:
12/31/2007: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars): $38,168,149;
12/31/2007: High-cost multiple: 0.36;
12/31/2009: Net trust fund balance (thousands of dollars):
-$15,409,890;
12/31/2009: High-cost multiple: N.A.
Source: Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor.
Note: Net trust fund balances are gross reserves less federal UI
loans. 'N.A.' for high-cost multiple indicates a negative net trust
fund balance.
[End of table]
Recent Recession Has Sharply Increased Number and Duration of UI
Claims:
The recent recession has resulted in very large numbers of workers
receiving benefits for very long periods of time. The insured
unemployment rate (IUR), which provides a measure of the percentage of
the UI-covered labor force receiving benefits, reached 4.6 percent in
the second quarter of 2009, higher than any annual level since
reaching 4.7 percent for 1982.[Footnote 30] Twenty-three states
recorded quarterly rates of 4.7 percent or higher during the second
quarter of 2009. Unemployed workers have also experienced an
historically long duration of benefit recipiency during this
recession. Nationally, the average duration among those workers
receiving benefits during the fourth quarter of 2009 was 18.8 weeks,
higher than any annual average in the program's history.[Footnote 31]
For 2009, total weeks compensated for regular UI claimants totaled 266
million, also higher than that of any year in the program's history.
High IURs and long durations have increased demands on the UI program.
Total UI regular and extended benefits paid out in 2009 equaled $85.8
billion, compared to $40.7 billion for all of 2008. The highest 12-
month benefit payout rate, 2.2 percent of total wages, occurred in
1975, but 2009 could approach that level of benefit payments.[Footnote
32] Another indicator of the surge in benefit payments is that 40
states paid extended benefits in the fourth quarter of 2009; these
benefits totaled $6.3 billion in 2009, higher in inflation-adjusted
terms than in any year since 1976.
Although UI Tax Rates Will Rise Sharply in Many States, Labor Projects
Negative Balances for Several Years:
UI taxes in most states will increase in 2010, and likely beyond,
because of automatic triggers in most states that react to declining
UI trust fund reserves. Twenty-five states have raised their UI
taxable wage base in 2010, including 9 that do not index the base to
average wages. A 2009 state survey found that 35 states would increase
their UI taxes on employers in 2010, with increases ranging from 2.5
percent in Kentucky to 600 percent in Hawaii, and a median projected
contribution level increase of 27.5 percent.[Footnote 33] The survey
also found that 10 other states indicated that they could not increase
their tax schedules any further under current state law, and would
need to have their state legislatures revise current law to do so.
Despite projected tax increases in many states, UI reserves are
expected to decline sharply in the near future. While the economy
appears to be recovering from the recession, DOL has projected that
national unemployment rates will remain well above 9 percent in 2010,
and according to the CBO, many professional forecasters predict that
the pace of the recovery will be slow and that unemployment will
remain high for several years. DOL estimates that state UI regular
benefit outlays will be at $74.9 billion in fiscal year 2009 and $93.3
billion in fiscal year 2010, which is almost triple the amount of UI
benefits paid out in fiscal year 2007. DOL has projected that trust
fund account balances, net of loans, will fall to -$88.4 billion at
the end of fiscal year 2012 before starting to grow again, with net
balances not becoming positive until well beyond fiscal year 2014. DOL
anticipates that the number of outstanding UI loans that states have
from the federal government will increase until 2012, when they could
total $90 billion. Employers in states that cannot make their loan
payments within the required 2-year period could lose some of their
FUTA tax credit and pay increasing tax rates each year until the loan
is repaid. For example, a 2009 UI solvency study by the state of New
Hampshire projected that if the state's employers lose FUTA tax
credits in 2012, they will owe an additional $153 million in taxes
through 2016, plus an additional $71 million in 2017. During past
recessions in the 1980s and 2000s, employers in approximately 20
states did lose FUTA tax credits due to states' inability to repay
state loans on time, and the federal government ultimately kept the
escalating FUTA credit reductions in place until the states repaid
their debts.[Footnote 34]
Long-standing State UI Policies and Practices Have Led to Trust Fund
Vulnerability:
While the recent recession has severely drained UI reserves, the
current situation reflects long-term financial decline. The mid-1970s
marked a noticeable shift in trust fund financial conditions, starting
with the recession that lasted from 1973 to 1975. Prior to that time,
from 1938 to 1973, state UI trust funds held average year-end
reserves, net of loans, equal to 5.1 percent of wages, and never
dropped below 2 percent. From 1974 to 2008, that average fell to 1.0
percent of wages and has never been as high as 2 percent. Therefore,
states have had less of a financial buffer in their trust funds to
withstand a high-cost benefit period. Prior to the recent recession,
the aggregate HCM nationwide was only 0.35, corresponding to enough
reserves for about 4 months of benefits at a high-cost rate; therefore
even a much milder recession was likely to have caused widespread
trust fund insolvency. Further, table 3 shows a large difference in
the average state HCM prior to the current recession for states that
have needed to borrow to pay benefits (average state HCM of 0.32) and
those that have not (0.87), with similar pre-recession funding
differences for the three previous recessions.[Footnote 35] This
suggests that pre-recession funding levels have played a key role in
helping states avoid loans during the recent recession and current
recovery (although the average peak IUR in borrowing states has also
exceeded that of non-borrowing states). Further, average U.S. pre-
recession funding levels were lower prior to the recent recession than
for the previous three. Perhaps most surprising is that despite a 10-
year economic expansion prior to the 2001 recession, states built up
trust funds to an average HCM of only 0.64, enough to pay benefits at
a high-cost rate for about 8 months.
Table 3: Key Trust Fund and Employment Statistics for Last Four U.S.
Recessions:
Date of recession: States taking out federal loans (number of states);
2007: Pre-recession HCM: 0.34 (34);
2007: Peak IUR: 4.9;
Early 1980s: Pre-recession HCM: 0.28 (25);
Early 1980s: Peak IUR: 5.2;
1990: Pre-recession HCM: 0.34 (5);
1990: Peak IUR: 3.7;
2001: Pre-recession HCM: 0.30 (5);
2001: Peak IUR: 2.7.
Date of recession: Non-borrowing states;
2007: Pre-recession HCM: 0.93;
2007: Peak IUR: 4.2;
Early 1980s: Pre-recession HCM: 0.96;
Early 1980s: Peak IUR: 4.6;
1990: Pre-recession HCM: 1.01;
1990: Peak IUR: 3.1;
2001: Pre-recession HCM: 0.91;
2001: Peak IUR: 2.7.
Date of recession: All U.S.;
2007: Pre-recession HCM: 0.35;
2007: Peak IUR: 4.6;
Early 1980s: Pre-recession HCM: 0.41;
Early 1980s: Peak IUR: 4.7;
1990: Pre-recession HCM: 0.86;
1990: Peak IUR: 3.2;
2001: Pre-recession HCM: 0.64;
2001: Peak IUR: 2.8.
Source: GAO calculations, based on Unemployment Insurance Financial
Data Handbook, ETA.
Note: HCM is average state high cost multiple just prior to recession
and IUR is average peak state insured unemployment rate following
onset of recession (annual data for 1980s and 1990, quarterly for 2001
and 2007). All U.S. is not an average of state measures.
[End of table]
UI Taxation Levels Have Declined Since the 1970s:
Declining UI trust fund reserves in recent decades suggest that states
have reduced UI tax contribution levels, increased or broadened
benefits, or both, although most of the evidence suggests that many
states have reduced tax levels gradually. Although there are
fluctuations, UI tax contributions as a percentage of UI-covered wages
have trended downward in recent decades, from an annual national
average of 1.15 percent (1979 to 1988) to 0.79 percent (1989 to 1998)
and in the past decade to 0.65 percent (1999 to 2008) (see figure 2).
Contribution rates exceeded 1.0 percent of total wages for each year
from 1979 to 1987 but have fallen below that level each year since.
Over the same 30-year period, average annual benefits slightly
exceeded contributions, with benefits averaging 0.90 percent of annual
wages and contributions averaging 0.86 percent of wages. Year-end net
trust fund reserves over the period fell from 0.91 percent of wages in
1979 to 0.60 percent in 2008, with further declines in 2009. While
there were expected fluctuations around the business cycles, with
benefits surging during recessions and contributions rising once the
economy strengthens, there has been a general downward trend in
contribution rates over the period.
Figure 2: UI Contributions, Benefits, and Net Reserves, 1979-2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph]
Percentage of UI-covered wages:
Year: 1979;
Contributions: 1.28%;
Benefits: 0.91%;
Net reserves: 0.91%.
Year: 1980;
Contributions: 1.11%;
Benefits: 1.34%;
Net reserves: 0.64%.
Year: 1981;
Contributions: 1.03%;
Benefits: 1.17%;
Net reserves: 0.51%.
Year: 1982;
Contributions: 1.04%;
Benefits: 1.76%;
Net reserves: 0%.
Year: 1983;
Contributions: 1.18%;
Benefits: 1.44%;
Net reserves: 0%.
Year: 1984;
Contributions: 1.37%;
Benefits: 0.92%;
Net reserves: 0.16%.
Year: 1985;
Contributions: 1.31%;
Benefits: 0.96%;
Net reserves: 0.68%.
Year: 1986;
Contributions: 1.16%;
Benefits: 0.99%;
Net reserves: 0.99%.
Year: 1987;
Contributions: 1.05%;
Benefits: 0.81%;
Net reserves: 1.38%.
Year: 1988;
Contributions: 0.97%;
Benefits: 0.69%;
Net reserves: 1.71%.
Year: 1989;
Contributions: 0.86%;
Benefits: 0.71%;
Net reserves: 1.92%.
Year: 1990;
Contributions: 0.75%;
Benefits: 0.86%;
Net reserves: 1.88%.
Year: 1991;
Contributions: 0.71%;
Benefits: 1.2%;
Net reserves: 1.49%.
Year: 1992;
Contributions: 0.78%;
Benefits: 1.1%;
Net reserves: 1.19%.
Year: 1993;
Contributions: 0.88%;
Benefits: 0.92%;
Net reserves: 1.25%.
Year: 1994;
Contributions: 0.92%;
Benefits: 0.86%;
Net reserves: 1.32%.
Year: 1995v
Contributions: 0.87%;
Benefits: 0.8%;
Net reserves: 1.4%.
Year: 1996;
Contributions: 0.8%;
Benefits: 0.76%;
Net reserves: 1.43%.
Year: 1997;
Contributions: 0.73%;
Benefits: 0.64%;
Net reserves: 1.5%.
Year: 1998;
Contributions: 0.62%;
Benefits: 0.58%;
Net reserves: 1.51%.
Year: 1999v
Contributions: 0.56%;
Benefits: 0.57%;
Net reserves: 1.47%.
Year: 2000;
Contributions: 0.54%;
Benefits: 0.52%;
Net reserves: 1.46%.
Year: 2001;
Contributions: 0.52%;
Benefits: 0.81%;
Net reserves: 1.24%.
Year: 2002;
Contributions: 0.53%;
Benefits: 1.08%;
Net reserves: 0.96%.
Year: 2003;
Contributions: 0.67%;
Benefits: 1.03%;
Net reserves: 0.64%.
Year: 2004;
Contributions: 0.78%;
Benefits: 0.81%;
Net reserves: 0.59%.
Year: 2005;
Contributions: 0.82%;
Benefits: 0.69%;
Net reserves: 0.67%.
Year: 2006;
Contributions: 0.76%;
Benefits: 0.62%;
Net reserves: 0.78%.
Year: 2007;
Contributions: 0.67%;
Benefits: 0.64%;
Net reserves: 0.8%.
Year: 2008;
Contributions: 0.62%;
Benefits: 0.85%;
Net reserves: 0.6%.
Sources: Unemployment Insurance Financial Data Handbook; Employment
and Training Administration, Department of Labor.
Note: For more detailed data, see table 8 in appendix IV.
[End of figure]
* Eroding Taxable Wage Bases:
One key reason for falling UI contribution rates is that most states
do not index their taxable wage bases, the annual earnings per
employee on which employers pay UI taxes, to average wages. As of
2010, only 17 of the 53 state trust funds have taxable wage bases that
are indexed to average wages (see figure 3).[Footnote 36] In contrast,
other states change their wage bases sporadically or very
infrequently. Twenty-six have UI taxable wage bases of $10,000 per
worker per year or less, including 6 that have set theirs at the FUTA
wage base level of $7,000 since it last changed in 1983. As a result,
employers have paid taxes on a gradually shrinking portion of total
wages as wages have risen since then. The ratio of UI-taxable to total
wages measured 47.2 percent in 1979 but has declined steadily since
then measuring 26.8 percent in 2008. States not indexing their wage
bases account for most of this decline-the ratio in these states fell
from 0.50 to 0.25 over this period while indexing states' average
ratio dropped only from 0.59 to 0.53 (see figure 4).
Figure 3: UI Taxable Wage Bases, 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: U.S. map]
Taxable wage base: $7,000 (minimum taxable-wage base):
Arizona:
California:
Florida:
Mississippi:
Puerto Rico:
South Carolina.
Taxable wage base: $7,700 to $18,000:
Alabama:
Arkansas:
Colorado:
Connecticut:
Delaware:
District of Columbia:
Georgia:
Illinois:
Indiana:
Kansas:
Kentucky:
Louisiana:
Maine:
Maryland:
Massachusetts:
Michigan:
Missouri:
Nebraska:
New Hampshire:
New York:
Ohio:
Oklahoma:
Pennsylvania:
South Dakota:
Tennessee:
Texas:
Vermont:
Virginia:
West Virginia:
Wisconsin.
Taxable wage base: $19,000 or more:
Alaska:
Hawaii:
Idaho:
Iowa:
Minnesota:
Montana:
Nevada:
New Jersey:
New Mexico:
North Carolina:
North Dakota:
Oregon:
Rhode Island:
Utah:
Virgin Islands:
Washington:
Wyoming.
Source: Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor.
Note: Each state's taxable wage base is the annual earnings per
employee on which employers pay UI taxes. For other major
characteristics of state UI programs, see appendix III.
[End of figure]
Figure 4: Comparison of UI-taxable/total Wage Ratio, States with
Indexed Taxable Wage Bases vs. Other States, 1979-2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph]
UI-covered wage ratio:
Year: 1979;
States with an indexed wage base: 0.59;
States without an indexed wage base: 0.50;
U.S. average: 0.47.
Year: 1980;
States with an indexed wage base: 0.57;
States without an indexed wage base: 0.47;
U.S. average: 0.45.
Year: 1981;
States with an indexed wage base: 0.568;
States without an indexed wage base: 0.444;
U.S. average: 0.42.
Year: 1982;
States with an indexed wage base: 0.57;
States without an indexed wage base: 0.43;
U.S. average: 0.41.
Year: 1983;
States with an indexed wage base: 0.58;
States without an indexed wage base: 0.46;
U.S. average: 0.43.
Year: 1984;
States with an indexed wage base: 0.58;
States without an indexed wage base: 0.45;
U.S. average: 0.43.
Year: 1985;
States with an indexed wage base: 0.58;
States without an indexed wage base: 0.44;
U.S. average: 0.42.
Year: 1986;
States with an indexed wage base: 0.57;
States without an indexed wage base: 0.43;
U.S. average: 0.41.
Year: 1987;
States with an indexed wage base: 0.57;
States without an indexed wage base: 0.42;
U.S. average: 0.40.
Year: 1988;
States with an indexed wage base: 0.55;
States without an indexed wage base: 0.40;
U.S. average: 0.39.
Year: 1989;
States with an indexed wage base: 0.56;
States without an indexed wage base: 0.40;
U.S. average: 0.39.
Year: 1990;
States with an indexed wage base: 0.56;
States without an indexed wage base: 0.38;
U.S. average: 0.38.
Year: 1991;
States with an indexed wage base: 0.54;
States without an indexed wage base: 0.37;
U.S. average: 0.37.
Year: 1992;
States with an indexed wage base: 0.56;
States without an indexed wage base: 0.36;
U.S. average: 0.36.
Year: 1993;
States with an indexed wage base: 0.56;
States without an indexed wage base: 0.36;
U.S. average: 0.36.
Year: 1994;
States with an indexed wage base: 0.57;
States without an indexed wage base: 0.36;
U.S. average: 0.36.
Year: 1995;
States with an indexed wage base: 0.57;
States without an indexed wage base: 0.35;
U.S. average: 0.35.
Year: 1996;
States with an indexed wage base: 0.56;
States without an indexed wage base: 0.34;
U.S. average: 0.34.
Year: 1997;
States with an indexed wage base: 0.56;
States without an indexed wage base: 0.33;
U.S. average: 0.33.
Year: 1998;
States with an indexed wage base: 0.55;
States without an indexed wage base: 0.32;
U.S. average: 0.32.
Year: 1999;
States with an indexed wage base: 0.55;
States without an indexed wage base: 0.32;
U.S. average: 0.32.
Year: 2000;
States with an indexed wage base: 0.55;
States without an indexed wage base: 0.31;
U.S. average: 0.31.
Year: 2001;
States with an indexed wage base: 0.55;
States without an indexed wage base: 0.30;
U.S. average: 0.30.
Year: 2002;
States with an indexed wage base: 0.56;
States without an indexed wage base: 0.29;
U.S. average: 0.3.
Year: 2003;
States with an indexed wage base: 0.56;
States without an indexed wage base: 0.29;
U.S. average: 0.29.
Year: 2004;
States with an indexed wage base: 0.55;
States without an indexed wage base: 0.27;
U.S. average: 0.29.
Year: 2005;
States with an indexed wage base: 0.55;
States without an indexed wage base: 0.27;
U.S. average: 0.29.
Year: 2006;
States with an indexed wage base: 0.55;
States without an indexed wage base: 0.26;
U.S. average: 0.28.
Year: 2007;
States with an indexed wage base: 0.54;
States without an indexed wage base: 0.26;
U.S. average: 0.27.
Year: 2008;
States with an indexed wage base: 0.53;
States without an indexed wage base: 0.25;
U.S. average: 0.27.
Source: GAO calculations based on data from Unemployment Insurance
Financial Data Handbook; Employment and Training Administration,
Department of Labor.
Note: The UI-taxable/total wage ratio divides the portion of total
wages among employees in UI-covered employment each state subjects to
UI taxation by the total wages earned by these employees. Some states
have indexed their UI taxable wage bases for only some years during
1979-2008. We categorize Virgin Islands as indexing from 2004-8; Rhode
Island from 1980-1998; Wyoming from 1984-2008; Oklahoma from 1986-
2008; and North Carolina from 1984-2008. States that indexed their
wage bases for the entire period are Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa,
Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota,
Oregon, Utah, and Washington. For more detailed data, see table 9 in
appendix IV.
[End of figure]
A comparison of financial measures for states that index their UI
taxable wage bases and those that do not reveals that indexing states
have maintained higher annual average reserve ratios and had many
fewer instances of trust fund insolvency, even accounting for the
smaller number of states that index (see table 4). In indexing states,
employers pay higher contribution rates--paying, on average, lower tax
rates on higher tax bases. Benefits in indexing states, as a
percentage of annual wages, also exceed those in non-indexing states.
Finally, states currently indexing their taxable wage bases have
higher trust fund reserve ratios (as of third quarter 2009), although
6 of 17 indexing states currently have outstanding loans (as opposed
to those in 25 of the 36 non-indexing states).
Table 4: UI Financial Statistics, States with Indexed Taxable Wage
Bases vs. Other States, 1979-2008:
Indexing states (17, as of 2010)[A];
Avg. taxable wage base ($/worker/year): $16,112;
2010 Avg. taxable wage base ($/worker/year): $27, 218;
Taxable wages (% of UI-covered wages): 56.1;
Net reserves (% of UI-covered wages): 2.12;
Instances of states receiving federal UI loans[B]: 11;
UI contributions (% of UI-covered wages): 1.11;
Tax rate (% of taxable wage base): 1.96;
Benefits (% of UI-covered wages): 1.09;
Trust fund balance as of 4th quarter 2009 (% of UI-covered wages):
1.05.
Non-indexing states (36);
Avg. taxable wage base ($/worker/year): $8,016;
2010 Avg. taxable wage base ($/worker/year): $9,742;
Taxable wages (% of UI-covered wages): 36.1;
Net reserves (% of UI-covered wages): 1.44;
Instances of states receiving federal UI loans[B]: 55;
UI contributions (% of UI-covered wages): 0.84;
Tax rate (% of taxable wage base): 2.30;
Benefits (% of UI-covered wages): 0.87;
Trust fund balance as of 4th quarter 2009 (% of UI-covered wages):
0.37.
Source: GAO calculations using data from Unemployment Insurance
Financial Data Handbook, ETA.
Note: Figures are annual averages for 1979-2008 except as noted.
[A] See note in figure 4 about states that have indexed their taxable
wage base for part of this sample period.
[B] Counts the number of states that had an end-of-year UI loan
balance from the federal government during or following each of the
four recessions occurring from 1979 to 2008, with consecutive multi-
year balances during one recession or recovery counting as one event.
[End of table]
* Low State UI Tax Rates:
While taxable wage bases have eroded in most states over the last 30
years, the tax rates employers pay on these bases have not offset this
decline, according to analysis by the Urban Institute. Table 5
illustrates how minimum tax rates have generally trended downward,
while maximums have moved up during the last 30 years. From 1978 to
2008, average minimum tax rates levied on employers by states dropped
from 1.14 percent to 0.37 percent of taxable wages. State minimum
rates generally moved downward, with the number of states with a
minimum rate of zero rose from 3 to 9. The average maximum rate
increased from 4.44 percent of taxable wages in 1978 to 7.06 percent
in 2008, but most of this jump occurred following a 1982 statutory
change raising the state maximum rate required to qualify for the FUTA
tax credit from at least 2.7 percent to at least 5.4 percent of
taxable wages - since 1988, average maximum tax rates have remained
near 7.0 percent while average minimum rates have fallen by half.
[Footnote 37] Maximum statutory tax rates in 2009 ranged greatly
across states, from 5.4 percent of taxable wages per employee in 16
states to 13.2 percent in Pennsylvania.[Footnote 38] Overall, UI
statutory tax rates applied to wage bases averaged 2.7 percent of
taxable wages from 1979 to 1988, then 2.2 percent from 1989 to 1998
and again from 1999 to 2008.
Table 5: Distribution of Minimum and Maximum Statutory UI Tax Rates by
State, 1978 to 2008:
Year: 1978;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 0: 3;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 0.01 to 0.29%: 9;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 0.3 to 0.69%: 11;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 0.7 to 1.09%: 4;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 1.1 to 1.59%: 10;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 1.6 to 2.09%: 2;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 2.1 to 2.59%: 3;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 2.6% and above: 9;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: Average minimum rate: 1.14.
Year: 1988;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 0: 4;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 0.01 to 0.29%: 11;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 0.3 to 0.69%: 14;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 0.7 to 1.09%: 7;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 1.1 to 1.59%: 7;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 1.6 to 2.09%: 6;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 2.1 to 2.59%: 2;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 2.6% and above: 0;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: Average minimum rate: 0.74.
Year: 1998;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 0: 8;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 0.01 to 0.29%: 19;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 0.3 to 0.69%: 13;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 0.7 to 1.09%: 2;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 1.1 to 1.59%: 4;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 1.6 to 2.09%: 4;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 2.1 to 2.59%: 1;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 2.6% and above: 0;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: Average minimum rate: 0.50.
Year: 2008;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 0: 9;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 0.01 to 0.29%: 19;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 0.3 to 0.69%: 14;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 0.7 to 1.09%: 3;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 1.1 to 1.59%: 5;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 1.6 to 2.09%: 1;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 2.1 to 2.59%: 0;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 2.6% and above: 0;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: Average minimum rate: 0.37.
Year: 1978;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 2.7%: 4;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 2.71 to 4.0%: 20;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 4.01 to 5.39%: 16;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 5.4%: 1;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 5.41 to 6.49%: 6;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 6.5 to 7.49%: 2;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 7.5 to 9.09%: 2;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 9.1% and above: 0;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: Average maximum rate: 4.44.
Year: 1988;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 2.7%: 0;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 2.71 to 4.0%: 0;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 4.01 to 5.39%: 0;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 5.4%: 17;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 5.41 to 6.49%: 9;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 6.5 to 7.49%: 5;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 7.5 to 9.09%: 11;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 9.1% and above: 9;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: Average maximum rate: 6.99.
Year: 1998;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 2.7%: 0;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 2.71 to 4.0%: 0;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 4.01 to 5.39%: 0;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 5.4%: 16;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 5.41 to 6.49%: 10;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 6.5 to 7.49%: 8;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 7.5 to 9.09%: 12;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 9.1% and above: 5;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: Average maximum rate: 6.82.
Year: 2008;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 2.7%: 0;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 2.71 to 4.0%: 0;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 4.01 to 5.39%: 0;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 5.4%: 17;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 5.41 to 6.49%: 10;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 6.5 to 7.49%: 5;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 7.5 to 9.09%: 8;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: 9.1% and above: 11;
Number of states with minimum tax rates of: Average maximum rate: 7.06.
Source: Urban Institute analysis of ETA "Significant Provisions of
State UI Laws," and "Comparison of State Unemployment Insurance Laws,"
various issues. State averages are simple averages of 51 programs that
weight each state equally regardless of size. Data exclude Puerto Rico
and the Virgin Islands.
[End of table]
Further, average tax rates on total wages in many states have fallen
below what DOL considers to be adequate to cover the costs of
benefits.[Footnote 39] A 2009 DOL report on state tax systems reported
that all but six states levied average tax rates below the rate
adequate to cover benefits and maintain solvency.[Footnote 40]
Similarly, only seven states met their adequate financing rates in
2008; states were better at meeting their adequate financing rates in
2006 and 2007.[Footnote 41] As of 2009, 20 of 43 states and
territories that submitted information for a 2009 DOL report on state
tax systems had trust funds with minimum tax rates that were less than
$15 per employee per year, and 12 of these states had a minimum tax
rate of zero. In 34 of these 43 states, over half of the employers
paid UI tax rates of 0.5 percent or less of total wages, while
nationally in the aggregate 67 percent of U.S. employers paid this low
rate. In 30 states, as well as the United States overall, this low
rate was applied to at least half of the total UI-eligible wages. The
United States as a whole only had 3 percent of its employers paying
taxes greater than 2 percent of total wages.
Benefits Have Remained Fairly Flat in Recent Decades:
By several measures UI benefits have remained relatively flat or
declined in recent decades, suggesting that declining trust fund
reserves cannot be explained by a significant change in benefits.
Aggregate annual benefits nationwide averaged 1.10 percent of UI-
covered wages from 1979 to 1988, then dropped 0.84 percent from 1989
to 1998 and again to 0.76 percent from 1999 to 2008. Average weekly
benefits paid as a percentage of average weekly wages have remained
relatively flat from 1979 to 2008, fluctuating from approximately 33
to 38 percent. Measured in terms of replacement rates, or the ratio of
individual benefits received to prior wages, benefits to wages have
also remained fairly flat from 1988 to 2007, ranging from 44 to 47
percent. Moreover, as we found in 2007, the UI recipiency rate, which
effectively measures the percentage of the unemployed who receive
benefits, gradually declined from the 1950s through the 1980s and
remains below the near-50 percent rate of the 1950s. In 1979, the
ratio of the insured unemployment rate to the total unemployment rate
measured 48 percent, compared to 43 percent in 2008.[Footnote 42]
Further, low-wage and part-time workers continue to experience low
rates of benefit receipt.[Footnote 43] For example, we found that low-
wage workers were more than twice as likely to be unemployed, but
about half as likely to receive UI benefits.[Footnote 44] We have also
found that past declines in the percentage of unemployed who receive
UI benefits are associated with declines in state UI trust fund
financial conditions. For example, in 1993 we found that if the same
proportion of unemployed workers had received comparable benefit
payments during the 1990-91 recession as during the 1974-75 recession,
about $20 billion more in unemployment benefits would have been
available to stabilize the economy and maintain the incomes of the
unemployed. In addition, we found that states with declining or
insolvent trust funds were likely to make it more difficult for
unemployed workers to qualify for benefits and to reduce the portion
of wages of former workers replaced by unemployment benefits.[Footnote
45]
In addition to paying regular benefits, states are also typically
responsible for funding a portion of benefits paid under the federal-
state Extended Benefits program (EB). While states fund approximately
half of the cost of EB, the aggregate cost of these benefits for the
states represents a small portion of total benefits paid by the
states. From 1979 to the third quarter of 2009, EB payments totaled
$13.3 billion, approximately $4.8 billion of which the states paid
for. These amounts represent 1.9 percent of total benefits paid, and
0.7 percent of state benefits paid, and hence have had relatively
little impact on state trust funds. Given the surge in EB in 2009,
with over $4 billion in total through the third quarter, without the
federal government funding 100 percent of most EB costs from February
17, 2009, through April 5, 2010, under ARRA, as amended, the impact
would have been much greater; it remains to be seen if EB becomes a
significant burden on states later in 2010.[Footnote 46]
States Annually Adjust Tax Rates Based on Trust Fund Levels:
Currently, all states adjust UI tax rates yearly, based on an annual
measurement of the size of the trust fund and calculation of employer
experience rating. Generally, states raise UI tax rates as the trust
fund diminishes in order to try to replenish the fund and lower them
when the fund grows to a certain level. This practice has the
advantage of providing automatic stabilization to UI funding. However,
it creates two problems. First, annual adjustments might allow rates
to remain inappropriately high or low for up to an entire year if
economic conditions change sharply soon after the "fund trigger date"
on which a state measures its trust fund. Some states told us that
this occurred during the recent recession, which began in late 2007,
and worsened in fall 2008 following the financial meltdown, right
after some states had measured their trust funds. If states adjusted
their tax rates more frequently, employers may have seen more gradual
rate increases instead of the widespread sharp increases going into
effect in 2010. Second, tying tax rates to trust fund conditions means
that states are likely to raise taxes on employers when economic and
labor market conditions are weak (coinciding with increased benefit
payouts and low trust funds). Higher taxes during weak economic times
may exacerbate labor market conditions (since higher UI taxes make it
more expensive to hire workers) and economic recovery in general.
Thus, the effects of state tax adjustments erode at least some of the
stabilizing macroeconomic effects of paying UI benefits.
Among Policy Options, Revenue-Related Reforms May Hold Key to
Improving UI Trust Fund Solvency:
Given the UI program's vision for economic stabilization through
business cycles, it has been a policy goal for at least 3 decades to
promote greater forward funding of the individual state funds. In 1980
and 1994 national commissions issued many recommendations for
increasing and stabilizing program funding. These commissions, as well
as other studies, have encouraged states to build up reserves and
reduce the dependence on borrowing during difficult economic times.
Based on our current findings, table 6 lists some policy options for
improving long-term trust fund financing with some of their advantages
and disadvantages.
Table 6: Policy Options for Improving UI Funding:
Policy: Raise and index FUTA taxable wage base;
Who could implement: Congress;
Advantages: Would reverse years of erosion of UI tax base and maintain
wage base as a consistent proportion of income. Would cause states to
raise their taxable wage bases to qualify for FUTA credit. Could allow
federal government and states to reduce statutory tax rates for given
UI funding goals;
Disadvantages: Higher UI taxes could discourage hiring. Federal
taxable wage base represents different tax burdens to different states.
Resistance of states to increasing burden on employers to pay more to
federal trust funds.
Policy: Reduce number of employers paying very low UI tax rates;
Who could implement: States[A];
Advantages: Would increase UI contributions. Would better distribute
costs of social insurance;
Disadvantages: Fairness--UI taxes may not reflect costs attributable
to employers. Would reduced incentive for employers to avoid layoffs.
Policy: Reduce large tax subsidies across employers and industries;
Who could implement: States[A];
Advantages: Distribution of UI taxes based on costs created by
employer layoffs. Stronger incentives for employers to avoid layoffs;
Disadvantages: Increased rates may encourage employers with high tax
rates to try to circumvent tax.
Policy: Adjust state tax rates more frequently than annually and raise
solvency targets before implementing lower tax rates;
Who could implement: States[A];
Advantages: Tax rates could adjust before trust fund becomes severely
depleted. More funds raised during strong, not weak, economic
conditions;
Disadvantages: Higher administrative costs. Less ability of employers
to anticipate tax rates. Resistance from employers to paying
relatively high UI taxes when trust funds were flush.
Policy: Set additional conditions on interest-free loans;
Who could implement: Department of Labor[B];
Advantages: Strengthen incentives for states to avoid loans with more
robust forward funding;
Disadvantages: Increased reliance on higher tax rates during difficult
economic times. Estimated small impact. State objections to paying
more for funds their taxes provide.
Policy: Offer increased interest credits to state trust funds funded
above a certain level;
Who could implement: Congress;
Advantages: Incentive for states to save more in trust funds;
Disadvantages: States with lower funding balances may receive less in
interest.
Source: GAO analysis based on findings.
[A] While only states could implement these policy changes, Congress
could include these as requirements for employers in a state to
qualify for the FUTA tax credit.
[B] Labor has published proposed rules on interest-free loan
conditions that have yet to be finalized. See footnotes 20 and 51 for
additional information on this proposed rule.
[End of table]
* Raise and index FUTA taxable wage base:
The FUTA taxable wage base has remained fixed at $7,000 per worker per
year since 1983.[Footnote 47] Six state trust funds have also kept
their taxable wage base at that level since then, while an additional
20 set theirs between $7,000 and $10,000. From 1983 to 2008, the
average weekly wage in UI-covered employment rose from $336 to $869
per worker, a rise of 159 percent. By keeping the wage base fixed
instead of rising with wages, the percentage of wages subject to UI
taxation has fallen from 43.1 percent in 1983 to 26.8 percent in 2008.
This means that a steadily shrinking portion of the wage distribution
is responsible for raising UI revenues. This also suggests that any
impact UI taxes have on reducing wages has been borne increasingly by
lower-income workers. Raising the FUTA base to make up for some of the
relative erosion in the UI revenue base and indexing it to future wage
growth would ensure that a more constant share of total income
supports the UI program. If the FUTA taxable wage base had risen
roughly with the changes in wages since 1983, the 2008 taxable wage
would be approximately $18,100--higher than the 2010 tax bases for all
but 17 state trust funds.[Footnote 48] Since employers in states with
tax bases which are less than the FUTA tax base would not be eligible
for the full tax credit, states would almost certainly raise and index
theirs to the new, higher FUTA tax base. The one-time increase and
indexing of the taxable wage base would mean that state UI tax revenue
would more likely represent a consistent share of total wages, as well
as spread the effective tax incidence of UI taxes across more of the
wage distribution. It would also allow states to set lower tax rates
in order to raise a given amount of revenue, which is generally a more
efficient way to tax than to set higher tax rates on a narrower tax
base.
Most state UI program officials we interviewed said they would
welcome, or at least accept, a higher FUTA taxable wage base, some
emphasizing that some states have not been able to raise taxable wage
bases on their own. Other representatives said they would object to
higher federal UI taxes, some citing instances when the federal
government raised the statutory ceiling that triggers a Reed Act
distribution, thus postponing the payment of money to state trust
funds. Higher UI taxes, by making employment somewhat more expensive,
could discourage some employers from hiring; however, the federal
government could lower the effective 0.8 percent tax rate states have
paid since 1985, which would reduce the impact of raising and indexing
the FUTA tax base.
* Reform UI tax rates structure:
Another set of policy options would involve adjusting the UI tax rates
employers pay. For example, states could act to (1) reduce the number
of employers paying very low UI tax rates; (2) reduce large subsidies
among employers and industries that pay less in UI taxes than benefits
paid to their former workers; (3) adjust tax rates more frequently;
and (4) set taxes to raise more funds during strong economic times.
The first option would widen the effective revenue base for the
program by getting contributions from more employers and allow the
state to reduce tax rates for the higher levels of the tax schedule.
There are distinct arguments in favor of, and against, setting minimum
tax rates for all employers, and experience rating in general.
Assigning higher tax rates to employers who lay more workers off
distributes program costs in an arguably fair way and creates an
incentive for employers to retain workers during difficult economic
times. On the other hand, all employers, even those without a history
of layoffs, face uncertainty about the future UI claims of their
employees, an argument for every employer paying to cover this social
insurance.
As a second option, states could adjust experience ratings to reduce
significant subsidies for some employers and industries. GAO reported
in 2006 that industries with more seasonal layoffs, such as
construction and agriculture, tend to pay less in UI contributions
than their workers receive in benefits.[Footnote 49] Such experience
rating reform could raise additional revenues from high-layoff
employers whose tax rates hit tax rate maximums, better distribute the
UI tax burden to those employers who create higher benefit costs
through layoffs, and reduce benefit costs to the extent that higher
tax rates discourage these employers from laying workers off in the
first place. On the other hand, raising the rates charged to employers
with the highest experience rating might create strong incentives for
firms to circumvent paying UI taxes.[Footnote 50]
A third option would encourage states to adjust UI tax rates more
frequently if trust fund conditions change significantly and to raise
more revenues when economic conditions are stronger. Annual
adjustments to tax rates can lead to sharp increases when labor
markets are weak. More frequent, even twice-yearly, measurement of
trust fund conditions and tax rate adjustments could allow employers
to absorb changes in tax burden more gradually. However, more frequent
tax adjustments could create more administrative costs to implement,
and employers may not like the increased uncertainty caused by more
frequent tax adjustments. In order to build up more of a funding
cushion when economic conditions are strong rather than when they are
weak, states could consider setting higher trust fund targets before
lowering tax rates. However, this would require employers tolerating
higher UI tax rates than under the current system when trust funds are
relatively flush.
* Set additional loan conditions while increasing credits on trust
fund balances:
Recent proposed rules by Labor would seek to define eligibility for
interest-free terms on federal UI loans by setting standards states
would have to meet for maintaining the levels of their trust funds or
a level of tax "effort" in the years prior to applying for a loan.
[Footnote 51] While loans clearly serve a vital function in financing
benefits during difficult economic times, they somewhat reduce the
incentive for states to maintain robust trust funds. Stricter interest-
free loan qualifications might encourage states to maintain higher
funding targets, although Labor estimates such effects to be small.
However, reducing access to interest-free loans could lead states to
rely more heavily on raising tax rates when UI trust funds fall close
to zero, which likely coincides with difficult economic periods when
labor markets might benefit from lower, not higher, taxes. States may
object to being charged more to take out loans, particularly during a
recession as severe as the most recent one; in interviews, some state
representatives expressed a sentiment that the states fund the federal
trust funds that provide loans when states need them, and therefore
they should be available interest free. At the same time that rules
could restrict interest-free loans, paying higher rates of interest on
trust fund balances above a certain level (say, on balances
corresponding to an AHCM of 1.0 or higher) could provide a positive
incentive for states to accumulate more in UI reserves; for a given
amount of interest, this would mean that states with lower funding
levels would receive lower rates of interest.
Conclusions:
Like UI funding itself, interest in the financial condition of state
UI trust funds seems to follow the business cycle: during recessions
that drain reserves and force states to borrow to pay benefits, UI
stakeholders focus on the potential to improve forward funding in the
future. But when the economy, and with it trust fund levels, recovers,
the urgency to do so subsides. As it stands today, the long-term
decline of UI funding, culminating in widespread borrowing by state
trust funds and the dire financial condition of the program, raises
critical questions about the ability of the program to function as it
has in the past.
To be sure, no one would argue that forward funding implies that a
state should never have to borrow to pay benefits. Further, the
program is designed to allow states significant latitude in deciding
how much (and how) to tax their employers and how much to pay in
benefits. Further, a lack of consistent standards for trust fund
"adequacy" and the decentralization of UI policy make it
understandable, and to some parties even desirable, that forward
funding of trust funds varies across states and over time.
Nevertheless, Labor's prognosis for the ability of borrowing states to
repay their loans to avoid employer tax penalties is not optimistic.
States are responding to low trust fund levels by raising tax rates on
employers, which could undermine recovery. Meanwhile, any increased
borrowing could change the nature of the program's federal-state
partnership, with the federal government taking on more chronic
funding responsibility for paying benefits rather than providing, as
originally envisioned, a backstop to states when they experience
financial emergencies. Weakening forward funding could put pressure on
states to reduce benefits, which might compromise the program's goal
of providing macroeconomic stability during recessions.
Now is the time, therefore, to consider changes to federal program
policies that could better assure the long-term financial structure of
UI trust funds. The fact that states with an indexed taxable wage base
have a better record for maintaining solvency and in some cases
weathering high unemployment suggests one direction that federal
policymakers might take to preserve the program without compromising
state needs for flexibility.
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
To provide incentives for states to build up and maintain stronger UI
trust fund reserves, the Congress should begin to consider raising the
FUTA taxable wage base from its current level of $7,000 and indexing
this base to average annual wages. At the same time, the Congress
should consider measures to ameliorate the potential increase in the
tax burden on employers, such as lowering the FUTA statutory tax rate
or increasing the FUTA tax credit. Enacting such measures to take
effect when the current economic situation improves would create more
robust funding in the future by encouraging states to broaden the
revenue base for UI funding and maintain a consistent base relative to
wages.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Labor, which
provided written comments. Labor generally agreed with the findings
and conclusions of our report. Labor said that the report is both
important and timely considering the serious risk facing the financing
of state UI benefits, which is putting at risk the ability of the UI
system to act as an effective stabilizer for the economy and may
result in many states reducing their UI benefit levels. While
concurring with the report's emphasis on the value of UI forward
funding, Labor added that there may be additional options to address
solvency concerns, including greater federal cost sharing such as full
federal funding of extended benefits and various reinsurance models.
It also said that complex relationships between solvency, tax effort,
and differences in benefit adequacy need to be more deeply addressed.
In response to this comment, we revised the report to provide more
information from our prior work on the relationship between states' UI
financial condition and reductions in benefit levels, although we did
no new analysis beyond what we present here. Labor also said, with
respect to one of our policy suggestions, that having state tax rate
adjustments occur more frequently may be inconsistent with improving
long-term trust fund financing. We agree that the common practice of
adjusting rates upward in response to lower trust fund reserves,
regardless of frequency, is inconsistent with forward funding
principles; we include among our policy options that states change
their tax structures to raise more revenues during strong, rather than
weak, economic periods. However, given the mechanism of tying tax
rates to trust fund levels, we still believe that more frequent
adjustments may allow states to change rates to raise more revenues
before trust fund conditions become severe and sharp rate increases
are required. Labor's comments appear in appendix V. Labor also
provided technical comments that we incorporated as appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days after the date
of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to
the Secretary of Labor, appropriate congressional committees, and
other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others
on request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on
GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you have any questions concerning this report, please contact
Andrew Sherrill at (202) 512-7215. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. GAO staff who made contributions are listed in
appendix VI.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Andrew Sherrill:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
The objectives of this report were to (1) describe the current
condition of state UI trust funds, (2) highlight the policies or
practices that have contributed to their conditions, and (3) identify
options for improving state forward funding in the future to better
ensure the solvency of the UI program.
To address the first and second objectives, we analyzed UI state
statistical data on current unemployment insurance financial
conditions and current program information from the Department of
Labor's Employment and Training Administration (ETA). We also used
historical data from ETA to compare the program's current and recent
finances to that of past years and to research causes of the current
financial problems. We also reviewed applicable federal and state
laws, regulations and guidance, and relied on data and reports by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor, the Congressional Budget Office,
the Congressional Research Service, states' workforce agencies and
related associations, and other UI advocacy and policy groups. We
supplemented our analysis with interviews with officials from some of
these organizations. In particular, we conducted in-depth interviews
with UI program officials from a sample of ten states that represent a
range of geographic locations, economic conditions, and UI trust fund
reserve levels. These ten states were Alaska, California, Georgia,
Maine, Michigan, New York, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Washington. We
also reviewed UI governing state and federal legislation, regulations,
and guidance. We determined that the data we used for our analysis
were sufficiently reliable to address our key objectives. A
consultant, an expert in UI financing, also performed analysis of
state trust funds on our behalf.
To address the last objective, we synthesized conclusions from our
statistical analysis of state and national UI program data. We pose
potential advantages and disadvantages of proposed policy options
derived from our interviews with state UI program officials and with
other policy experts. We also reviewed past conclusions and
recommendations in reports by GAO, DOL, CBO, CRS, four past government
advisory councils on unemployment compensation, and public policy
organizations.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2009 through April 2010
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Unemployment Insurance Measures in the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act:
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) contains
several provisions to expand and extend unemployment
compensation.[Footnote 52] The law:
* extended the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program of 2008
(EUC) through December 31, 2009;
* increased weekly benefits by $25 per week, temporarily funded by
federal money;
* provided up to $7 billion total in "modernization incentive
payments" to states whose UI rules contain specific provisions that
broaden benefit eligibility;
* waived interest due on Title XII loans through December 31, 2010;
* provided for the federal government to pay 100 percent, instead of
50 percent, of the costs of extended benefits payments (EB)[Footnote
53];
* exempted the first $2,400 of unemployment benefits received by
individuals from tax in 2009; and:
* provided $500 million total to states for additional administrative
costs.
ETA reports that, as of March 26, 2010, total obligations for EUC
payments for extended benefits equaled $37.2 billion and for the
additional $25 weekly benefit obligations totaled $12.1 billion; $2.8
billion in modernization payments have been distributed to 31 states
and the District of Columbia; $6.5 billion for payments to states to
cover their portion of EB payments; and the $500 million distribution
to states for administrative expenses.
Each state's potential modernization incentive grant is proportional
to its FUTA taxable wages, payable in two installments. To receive the
first grant, for one-third of the total available to each state, state
law must provide for either a base period that uses recent wages or an
alternative base period using recent wages. Specifically, the regular
base period must include the most recently completed calendar quarter
before the start of the benefit year, or if the claimant cannot meet
monetary qualifying requirements using a regular base period that
excludes this quarter, the alternative base period must include the
most recently completed calendar quarter.
If a state qualifies under this provision, it may receive the
remaining two-thirds if its eligibility rules include two of four
possible criteria. These criteria are:
1. UI benefits are payable to certain individuals seeking only part-
time work.
2. An individual is not disqualified from UI for separations due to
certain compelling family reasons.
3. An additional 26 weeks of benefits is paid to exhaustees who are
enrolled in and making satisfactory progress in certain training
programs.
4. Dependents' allowances of at least $15 per dependent per week,
subject to a minimum aggregation, are paid to eligible beneficiaries.
As of March 26, 2010, 31 states and the District of Columbia have
qualified for $2.8 billion in grants, including 22 that have received
full payments (see figure 5). The Department of Labor has appealed to
states to apply for the remaining $4.15 billion in modernization grant
funding that remained unclaimed as of that date. Any changes that
states make to state unemployment programs as a result of ARRA's
modernization provisions must be permanent, and thus could increase
funding challenges for states in the future.[Footnote 54]
Figure 5: Distribution of ARRA UI Modernization Incentive Grants, as
of Mar. 26, 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: U.S. map]
32 states have received incentive payments totaling $2.84 billion.
Another $4.15 billion is available.
Received full funding allotment:
Arkansas:
Colorado:
Connecticut:
Delaware:
Georgia:
Hawaii:
Idaho:
Illinois:
Iowa:
Kansas:
Maine:
Massachusetts:
Minnesota:
Montana:
Nevada:
New Hampshire:
New Jersey:
New York:
Oklahoma:
Oregon:
Wisconsin.
Received first (one-third) share:
Alaska:
District of Columbia:
Michigan:
New Mexico:
Ohio:
South Dakota:
Vermont:
Virginia:
Washington:
West Virginia:
No funding yet:
Alabama:
Arizona:
California:
Florida:
Indiana:
Kentucky:
Louisiana:
Maryland:
Mississippi:
Missouri:
Nebraska:
North Carolina:
North Dakota:
Pennsylvania:
Puerto Rico:
Rhode Island:
South Carolina:
Tennessee:
Texas:
Utah:
Virgin Islands:
Wyoming.
Source: Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Major Characteristics of State UI Programs, as of March
2010:
State: Alabama;
Weekly benefit formula: 1/26 average of 2 highest quarters;
Minimum weekly benefit: $45;
Maximum weekly benefit: $265;
Number of benefit weeks: 15-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 20 weeks or $1,500 in
any quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $8,000;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0.44%; 6.04%;
New employer rate: 2.70%.
State: Alaska;
Weekly benefit formula: 0.9-4.4% of annual wages + $24 per dependent
up to $72;
Minimum weekly benefit: $56-128;
Maximum weekly benefit: $370-442;
Number of benefit weeks: 16-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: Any size[A];
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): (indexed to wages): $34,100;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 1.00%; 5.40%;
New employer rate: 1.96%.
State: Arizona;
Weekly benefit formula: 1/25 high quarter wages;
Minimum weekly benefit: $60;
Maximum weekly benefit: $240;
Number of benefit weeks: 12-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 20 weeks or 1,500 in any
quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $7,000;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0.02%; 5.40%;
New employer rate: 2.00%.
State: Arkansas;
Weekly benefit formula: 1/26 high quarter wages;
Minimum weekly benefit: $79;
Maximum weekly benefit: $441;
Number of benefit weeks: 9-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: One employee for 10 or
more days in a calendar year;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $12,000;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0.90%; 6.80%;
New employer rate: 3.70%.
State: California;
Weekly benefit formula: 1/23 to 1/26 high quarter wages;
Minimum weekly benefit: $40;
Maximum weekly benefit: $450;
Number of benefit weeks: 14-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: Over 100 in any quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $7,000;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 1.50%; 6.20%;
New employer rate: 3.40%.
State: Colorado;
Weekly benefit formula: Higher of 60% of 1/26 of 2 consecutive high
quarter wages, capped by 50% of average weekly earnings or 50% of 1/52
base period earnings capped by 55% of average weekly earnings;
Minimum weekly benefit: $25;
Maximum weekly benefit: $443-487;
Number of benefit weeks: 13-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 20 weeks or 1,500 in any
quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $10,000;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0; 5.40%;
New employer rate: 1.70%.
State: Connecticut;
Weekly benefit formula: 1/26 average of 2 highest quarters + $15 per
dependent, up to 5;
dependents allowance capped at weekly benefit amount (For construction
workers, 1/26 high quarter);
Minimum weekly benefit: $15-30;
Maximum weekly benefit: $537-612;
Number of benefit weeks: 26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 20 weeks or 1,500 in any
quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $15,000;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 1.90%; 6.80%;
New employer rate: 3.00%.
State: Delaware;
Weekly benefit formula: 1/46 total wages in 2 highest quarters;
Minimum weekly benefit: $20;
Maximum weekly benefit: $330;
Number of benefit weeks: 24-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 20 weeks or $1,500 in
any quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $10,500;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0.10%; 8.00%;
New employer rate: 2.10%.
State: District of Columbia;
Weekly benefit formula: 1/26 high quarter wages;
Minimum weekly benefit: $50;
Maximum weekly benefit: $359;
Number of benefit weeks: 19-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: Any size;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $9,000;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 1.30%; 6.60%;
New employer rate: 2.70%.
State: Florida;
Weekly benefit formula: 1/26 high quarter wages;
Minimum weekly benefit: $32;
Maximum weekly benefit: $275;
Number of benefit weeks: 9-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 20 weeks or 1,500 in any
quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $7,000;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0.12%; 5.40%;
New employer rate: 2.70%.
State: Georgia;
Weekly benefit formula: 1/42 of wages in highest 2 quarters or 1/21
high quarter wages;
Minimum weekly benefit: $44;
Maximum weekly benefit: $330;
Number of benefit weeks: 6-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 20 weeks or 1,500 in any
quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $8,500;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0.025%; 5.40%;
New employer rate: 2.62%.
State: Hawaii;
Weekly benefit formula: 1/21 high quarter wages;
Minimum weekly benefit: $5;
Maximum weekly benefit: $559;
Number of benefit weeks: 26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: Any size;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): (indexed to wages): $38,800;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0; 5.40%;
New employer rate: 1.90%.
State: Idaho;
Weekly benefit formula: 1/26 high quarter wages;
Minimum weekly benefit: $72;
Maximum weekly benefit: $334;
Number of benefit weeks: 10-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 20 weeks or 1,500 in any
quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): (indexed to wages): $33,300;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0.447%; 5.40%;
New employer rate: 1.00%.
State: Illinois;
Weekly benefit formula: 47% of claimant's average weekly wage in 2
highest quarters;
Minimum weekly benefit: $51-77;
Maximum weekly benefit: $385-531;
Number of benefit weeks: 26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 20 weeks or 1,500 in any
quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $12,520;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0.60%; 6.80%;
New employer rate: 3.10%.
State: Indiana;
Weekly benefit formula: 5% of 1st $2,000 of wage credits in high
quarter, 4% of remaining high quarter wages credits;
wage credits limited to $9,250;
Minimum weekly benefit: $50;
Maximum weekly benefit: $390;
Number of benefit weeks: 8-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 20 weeks or 1,500 in any
quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $9,500;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 1.10%; 5.60%;
New employer rate: 2.70%.
State: Iowa;
Weekly benefit formula: 1/19 -1/23 high quarter wages for claimants
with dependents;
Minimum weekly benefit: $56-67;
Maximum weekly benefit: $374-459;
Number of benefit weeks: 9-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 20 weeks or 1,500 in any
quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): (indexed to wages): $24,500;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0; 8.00%;
New employer rate: 1.00%.
State: Kansas;
Weekly benefit formula: 4.25% high quarter wages;
Minimum weekly benefit: $109;
Maximum weekly benefit: $436;
Number of benefit weeks: 10-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 20 weeks or 1,500 in any
quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $8,000;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0; 7.40%;
New employer rate: 4.00%.
State: Kentucky;
Weekly benefit formula: 1.3078% base period wages;
Minimum weekly benefit: $39;
Maximum weekly benefit: $415;
Number of benefit weeks: 15-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 20 weeks or $1,500 in
any quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $8,000;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 1.00%; 10.00%;
New employer rate: 2.70%.
State: Louisiana;
Weekly benefit formula: 1/25 of the average of wages in 4 quarters of
base period x 1.05 x 1.15;
Minimum weekly benefit: $10;
Maximum weekly benefit: $247;
Number of benefit weeks: 26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 20 weeks or 1,500 in any
quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $7,700;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0.10%; 6.20%;
New employer rate: 2.89%.
State: Maine;
Weekly benefit formula: 1/22 average wages paid in 2 highest quarters
of base period + $10 per dependent up to ˝ weekly benefit amount;
Minimum weekly benefit: $62-93;
Maximum weekly benefit: $356-534;
Number of benefit weeks: 22-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 20 weeks or 1,500 in any
quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $12,000;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0.44%; 5.40%;
New employer rate: 1.57%.
State: Maryland;
Weekly benefit formula: 1/24 high quarter wages + $8 per dependent up
to 5 dependents;
Minimum weekly benefit: $25-65;
Maximum weekly benefit: $410;
Number of benefit weeks: 26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: Any size;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $8,500;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0.60%; 9.00%;
New employer rate: 2.20%.
State: Massachusetts;
Weekly benefit formula: 50% average weekly wage + $25 per dependent up
to ˝ weekly benefit amount;
Minimum weekly benefit: $33-49;
Maximum weekly benefit: $629-943;
Number of benefit weeks: 10-30;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 13 weeks or 1,500 in any
quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $14,000;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 1.26%; 12.27%;
New employer rate: 2.83%.
State: Michigan;
Weekly benefit formula: 4.1% high quarter wages + $6 for each
dependent up to 5;
Minimum weekly benefit: $117-147;
Maximum weekly benefit: $362;
Number of benefit weeks: 14-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 20 weeks or 1,000 in
calendar year;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $9,000;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0.60%; 10.30%;
New employer rate: 2.70%.
State: Minnesota;
Weekly benefit formula: Higher of 50% of 1/13 high quarter wages up to
43% of State average weekly wages or 50% of 1/52 base period wages up
to 66% of state average weekly wages;
Minimum weekly benefit: 38;
Maximum weekly benefit: $377-585;
Number of benefit weeks: $11-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: Any size;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): (indexed to wages): $27,000;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0.556%; 10.70%;
New employer rate: 2.3116%.
State: Mississippi;
Weekly benefit formula: 1/26 high quarter wages;
Minimum weekly benefit: $30;
Maximum weekly benefit: $235;
Number of benefit weeks: 13-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 20 weeks or 1,500 in any
quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $7,000;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0.70%; 5.40%;
New employer rate: 2.70%.
State: Missouri;
Weekly benefit formula: 4.00% of the average of the 2 high quarter
wages;
Minimum weekly benefit: $35;
Maximum weekly benefit: $320;
Number of benefit weeks: 8-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 20 weeks or 1,500 in any
quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $13,000;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0.00%; 9.75%;
New employer rate: 3.51%.
State: Montana;
Weekly benefit formula: 1% base period wages or 1.9% wages in 2 high
quarters;
Minimum weekly benefit: $125;
Maximum weekly benefit: $422;
Number of benefit weeks: 8-28;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: $1,000 in current or
preceding year;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): (indexed to wages): $26,000;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0; 6.12%;
New employer rate: 2.70%.
State: Nebraska;
Weekly benefit formula: ˝ average weekly wages;
Minimum weekly benefit: $30;
Maximum weekly benefit: $318;
Number of benefit weeks: 1-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 20 weeks or 1,500 in any
quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $9,000;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0; 5.40%;
New employer rate: 1.29%.
State: Nevada;
Weekly benefit formula: 1/25 high quarter wages;
Minimum weekly benefit: $16;
Maximum weekly benefit: $400;
Number of benefit weeks: 12-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 225 in any quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): (indexed to wages): $27,000;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0.25%; 5.40%;
New employer rate: 2.95%.
State: New Hampshire;
Weekly benefit formula: 1%-1.1% annual wages;
Minimum weekly benefit: $32;
Maximum weekly benefit: $427;
Number of benefit weeks: 26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 20 weeks or 1,500 in any
quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $10,000;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0.10%; 6.50%;
New employer rate: 2.70%.
State: New Jersey;
Weekly benefit formula: 60% of claimant's average weekly wage +
dependents allowance;
Minimum weekly benefit: $87-100;
Maximum weekly benefit: $600;
Number of benefit weeks: 1-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 1,000 in any year;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): (indexed to wages): $29,700;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0.30%; 5.40%;
New employer rate: 2.6825%.
State: New Mexico;
Weekly benefit formula: 60.0% of average weekly wage paid in base
period quarter in which wages were highest;
Minimum weekly benefit: $71-106.50;
Maximum weekly benefit: $426-526;
Number of benefit weeks: 16-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 20 weeks or 450 in any
quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): (indexed to wages): $20,800;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0.03%; 5.40%;
New employer rate: 2.00%.
State: New York;
Weekly benefit formula: 1/26 high quarter wages unless high quarter
wages $3,575 then, 1/25 high quarter wages;
Minimum weekly benefit: $64;
Maximum weekly benefit: $405;
Number of benefit weeks: 26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 300 in any quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $8,500;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0.70%; 8.70%;
New employer rate: 4.10%.
State: North Carolina;
Weekly benefit formula: 1/26 high quarter wages;
Minimum weekly benefit: $43;
Maximum weekly benefit: $505;
Number of benefit weeks: 13-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 20 weeks or 1,500 in any
quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): (indexed to wages): $19,700;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0; 6.84%;
New employer rate: 1.20%.
State: North Dakota;
Weekly benefit formula: 1/65 of wages in 2 high quarters + ˝ wages in
3rd high quarter;
Minimum weekly benefit: $43;
Maximum weekly benefit: $431;
Number of benefit weeks: 12-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 20 weeks or 1,500 in any
quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): (indexed to wages): $24,700;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0.20%; 9.86%;
New employer rate: 1.60%.
State: Ohio;
Weekly benefit formula: ˝ claimant's average weekly wage + dependents
allowance of $1-$133 based on claimant's average weekly wage and
number of dependents;
Minimum weekly benefit: $106;
Maximum weekly benefit: $375-508;
Number of benefit weeks: 20-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 20 weeks or 1,500 in any
quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $9,000;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0.30%; 9.00%;
New employer rate: 2.70%.
State: Oklahoma;
Weekly benefit formula: 1/23 high quarter wages;
Minimum weekly benefit: $16;
Maximum weekly benefit: $430;
Number of benefit weeks: 18-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 20 weeks or $1,500 in
any quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): (indexed to wages): $14,900;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0.10%; 5.50%;
New employer rate: 1.20%.
State: Oregon;
Weekly benefit formula: 1.25% base period wages;
Minimum weekly benefit: $115;
Maximum weekly benefit: $493;
Number of benefit weeks: 3-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 18 weeks or 1,000 in any
quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): (indexed to wages): $32,100;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0.90%; 5.40%;
New employer rate: 2.40%.
State: Pennsylvania;
Weekly benefit formula: 1/23-1/25 high quarter wages + $5 for 1
dependent;
$3 for 2nd dependent;
Minimum weekly benefit: $35-43;
Maximum weekly benefit: $564-572;
Number of benefit weeks: 16 or 26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: Any size;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): (italics = indexed to wages):
$8,000;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 1.8370%; 13.1576%;
New employer rate: 3.7030%.
State: Puerto Rico;
Weekly benefit formula: 1/11-1/26 high quarter wages;
Minimum weekly benefit: $7;
Maximum weekly benefit: $133;
Number of benefit weeks: 26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: Any size;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $7,000;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 1.40%; 5.40%;
New employer rate: 2.90%.
State: Rhode Island;
Weekly benefit formula: 4.62% high quarter wages + greater of $10 or
5% of the benefit rate per dependent up to 5 dependents;
Minimum weekly benefit: $68-118;
Maximum weekly benefit: $546-682;
Number of benefit weeks: 8-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: Any size;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $19,000;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 1.69%; 9.79%;
New employer rate: 2.36%.
State: South Carolina;
Weekly benefit formula: 1/26 high quarter wages;
Minimum weekly benefit: $20;
Maximum weekly benefit: $326;
Number of benefit weeks: 13-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 20 weeks or 1,500 in any
quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $7,000;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 1.14%; 6.00%;
New employer rate: 3.40%.
State: South Dakota;
Weekly benefit formula: 1/26 high quarter wages;
Minimum weekly benefit: $28;
Maximum weekly benefit: $309;
Number of benefit weeks: 15-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 20 weeks or 1,500 in any
quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $10,000;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0; 8.50%;
New employer rate: 1.20%.
State: Tennessee;
Weekly benefit formula: 1/26 of average 2 highest quarters;
Minimum weekly benefit: $30;
Maximum weekly benefit: $275;
Number of benefit weeks: 13-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 20 weeks or 1,500 in any
quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $9,000;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0.50%; 10.00%;
New employer rate: 2.70%.
State: Texas;
Weekly benefit formula: 1/25 high quarter wages;
Minimum weekly benefit: $59;
Maximum weekly benefit: $406;
Number of benefit weeks: 10-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 20 weeks or 1,500 in any
quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $9,000;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0.26%; 6.26%;
New employer rate: 2.70%.
State: Utah;
Weekly benefit formula: 1/26 high quarter wages;
Minimum weekly benefit: $29;
Maximum weekly benefit: $451;
Number of benefit weeks: 10-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: Any size;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): (indexed to wages): $28,300;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0.20%; 9.20%;
New employer rate: 1.20%.
State: Vermont;
Weekly benefit formula: Wages in the 2 highest quarters divided by 45;
Minimum weekly benefit: $64;
Maximum weekly benefit: $425;
Number of benefit weeks: 26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 20 weeks or 1,500 in any
quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $10,000;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0.80%; 6.50%;
New employer rate: 1.00%.
State: Virginia;
Weekly benefit formula: 1/50 of the 2 highest quarters;
Minimum weekly benefit: $54;
Maximum weekly benefit: $378;
Number of benefit weeks: 12-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 20 weeks or $1,500 in
any quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $8,000;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0.18%; 6.28%;
New employer rate: 2.50%.
State: Virgina Islands;
Weekly benefit formula: 1/26 high quarter wages;
Minimum weekly benefit: $33;
Maximum weekly benefit: $462;
Number of benefit weeks: 13-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: Any size;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): (indexed to wages): $22,200;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0; 6.00%;
New employer rate: 1.00%.
State: Washington;
Weekly benefit formula: 3.85% of average of high 2 quarters in base
period;
Minimum weekly benefit: $133;
Maximum weekly benefit: $560;
Number of benefit weeks: 1-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: Any size;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): (indexed to wages): $36,800;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0; 5.40%;
New employer rate: Industry average%.
State: West Virginia;
Weekly benefit formula: 1% annual wages;
Minimum weekly benefit: $24;
Maximum weekly benefit: $424;
Number of benefit weeks: 26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 20 weeks or 1,500 in any
quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $12,000;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 1.50%; 7.50%;
New employer rate: 2.70%.
State: Wisconsin;
Weekly benefit formula: 4% high quarter wages up to maximum weekly
benefit amount;
Minimum weekly benefit: $54;
Maximum weekly benefit: $363;
Number of benefit weeks: 14-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: 20 weeks or 1,500 in any
quarter;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): $12,000;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0; 8.50%;
New employer rate: 3.25%.
State: Wyoming;
Weekly benefit formula: 4% high quarter wages;
Minimum weekly benefit: $31;
Maximum weekly benefit: $438;
Number of benefit weeks: 11-26;
Minimum payroll size for benefit eligibility: Any size;
2010 taxable wage base (per worker): (indexed to wages): $22,800;
2010 minimum & maximum employer tax rates: 0.30%; 9.10%;
New employer rate: 1.60%.
Source: ETA, "Significant Provisions of State UI Laws," revised March
2010.
[A] For those states with "any size," all workers are covered
regardless of payroll size or weeks worked. States may have different
thresholds for agricultural, domestic, and nonprofit employing units.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Various UI Program Statistics:
Table 7: States with Loans from the Federal Unemployment Account, as
of December 31, 2009, and April 1, 2010 (Dollars in Millions):
State: Alabama;
12/31/09 balance: $146.1;
4/1/10 balance: $269.0.
State: Arizona;
12/31/09 balance: [Empty];
4/1/10 balance: $22.5.
State: Arkansas;
12/31/09 balance: $222.6;
4/1/10 balance: $318.2.
State: California;
12/31/09 balance: $5,984.7;
4/1/10 balance: $8,456.5.
State: Colorado;
12/31/09 balance: [Empty];
4/1/10 balance: $188.1.
State: Connecticut;
12/31/09 balance: $179.6;
4/1/10 balance: $423.9.
State: Delaware;
12/31/09 balance: [Empty];
4/1/10 balance: $2.6.
State: Florida;
12/31/09 balance: $951.7;
4/1/10 balance: $1,496.5.
State: Georgia;
12/31/09 balance: $70.0;
4/1/10 balance: $337.0.
State: Idaho;
12/31/09 balance: $107.1;
4/1/10 balance: $187.3.
State: Illinois;
12/31/09 balance: $1,168.5;
4/1/10 balance: $2,081.1.
State: Indiana;
12/31/09 balance: $1,488.6;
4/1/10 balance: $1,807.7.
State: Kansas;
12/31/09 balance: [Empty];
4/1/10 balance: $65.8.
State: Kentucky;
12/31/09 balance: $576.7;
4/1/10 balance: $759.8.
State: Maryland;
12/31/09 balance: [Empty];
4/1/10 balance: $103.9.
State: Massachusetts;
12/31/09 balance: [Empty];
4/1/10 balance: $278.9.
State: Michigan;
12/31/09 balance: $3,159.1;
4/1/10 balance: $3,797.1.
State: Minnesota;
12/31/09 balance: $281.1;
4/1/10 balance: $641.9.
State: Missouri;
12/31/09 balance: $474.3;
4/1/10 balance: $690.2.
State: Nevada;
12/31/09 balance: $127.1;
4/1/10 balance: $331.9.
State: New Hampshire;
12/31/09 balance: [Empty];
4/1/10 balance: $24.1.
State: New Jersey;
12/31/09 balance: $964.1;
4/1/10 balance: $1,569.9.
State: New York;
12/31/09 balance: $2,160.2;
4/1/10 balance: $3,032.0.
State: North Carolina;
12/31/09 balance: $1,606.7;
4/1/10 balance: $2,138.7.
State: Ohio;
12/31/09 balance: $1,727.9;
4/1/10 balance: $2,229.5.
State: Pennsylvania;
12/31/09 balance: $1,871.5;
4/1/10 balance: $2,814.3.
State: Rhode Island;
12/31/09 balance: $127.5;
4/1/10 balance: $204.2.
State: South Carolina;
12/31/09 balance: $692.0;
4/1/10 balance: $852.0.
State: South Dakota;
12/31/09 balance: $7.7;
4/1/10 balance: $22.8.
State: Texas;
12/31/09 balance: $1,322.5;
4/1/10 balance: $2,035.0.
State: Vermont;
12/31/09 balance: [Empty];
4/1/10 balance: $23.9.
State: Virgin Islands;
12/31/09 balance: $8.4;
4/1/10 balance: $12.9.
State: Virginia;
12/31/09 balance: $122.4;
4/1/10 balance: $318.3.
State: Wisconsin;
12/31/09 balance: $922.0;
4/1/10 balance: $1,343.8.
State: United States;
12/31/09 balance: $26,470.2;
4/1/10 balance: $38,881.4.
Source: Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor.
[End of table]
Table 8: UI Contributions, Benefits, and Reserves as a Percentage of
Total UI-Eligible Wages, 1979-2008:
Year: 1979;
Contributions: 1.28;
Benefits: 0.91;
Net reserves: 0.91.
Year: 1980;
Contributions: 1.11;
Benefits: 1.34;
Net reserves: 0.64.
Year: 1981;
Contributions: 1.03;
Benefits: 1.17;
Net reserves: 0.51.
Year: 1982;
Contributions: 1.04;
Benefits: 1.76;
Net reserves: -0.23.
Year: 1983;
Contributions: 1.18;
Benefits: 1.44;
Net reserves: -0.47.
Year: 1984;
Contributions: 1.37;
Benefits: 0.92;
Net reserves: 0.16.
Year: 1985;
Contributions: 1.31;
Benefits: 0.96;
Net reserves: 0.68.
Year: 1986;
Contributions: 1.16;
Benefits: 0.99;
Net reserves: 0.99.
Year: 1987;
Contributions: 1.05;
Benefits: 0.81;
Net reserves: 1.38.
Year: 1988;
Contributions: 0.97;
Benefits: 0.69;
Net reserves: 1.71.
Year: 1989;
Contributions: 0.86;
Benefits: 0.71;
Net reserves: 1.92.
Year: 1990;
Contributions: 0.75;
Benefits: 0.86;
Net reserves: 1.88.
Year: 1991;
Contributions: 0.71;
Benefits: 1.20;
Net reserves: 1.49.
Year: 1992;
Contributions: 0.78;
Benefits: 1.10;
Net reserves: 1.19.
Year: 1993;
Contributions: 0.88;
Benefits: 0.92;
Net reserves: 1.25.
Year: 1994;
Contributions: 0.92;
Benefits: 0.86;
Net reserves: 1.32.
Year: 1995;
Contributions: 0.87;
Benefits: 0.80;
Net reserves: 1.40.
Year: 1996;
Contributions: 0.80;
Benefits: 0.76;
Net reserves: 1.43.
Year: 1997;
Contributions: 0.73;
Benefits: 0.64;
Net reserves: 1.50.
Year: 1998;
Contributions: 0.62;
Benefits: 0.58;
Net reserves: 1.51.
Year: 1999;
Contributions: 0.56;
Benefits: 0.56;
Net reserves: 1.47.
Year: 2000;
Contributions: 0.54;
Benefits: 0.52;
Net reserves: 1.46.
Year: 2001;
Contributions: 0.52;
Benefits: 0.81;
Net reserves: 1.24.
Year: 2002;
Contributions: 0.53;
Benefits: 1.08;
Net reserves: 0.96.
Year: 2003;
Contributions: 0.67;
Benefits: 1.03;
Net reserves: 0.64.
Year: 2004;
Contributions: 0.78;
Benefits: 0.81;
Net reserves: 0.59.
Year: 2005;
Contributions: 0.82;
Benefits: 0.69;
Net reserves: 0.67.
Year: 2006;
Contributions: 0.76;
Benefits: 0.62;
Net reserves: 0.78.
Year: 2007;
Contributions: 0.67;
Benefits: 0.64;
Net reserves: 0.80.
Year: 2008;
Contributions: 0.62;
Benefits: 0.85;
Net reserves: 0.60.
Year: Annual average, 1979-2008;
Contributions: 0.86;
Benefits: 0.90;
Net reserves: 1.04.
Source: Unemployment Insurance Financial Data Handbook, Employment and
Training Administration, Dept. of Labor.
[End of table]
Table 9: UI-taxable Wages as a Percentage of Total UI-eligible Wages,
States with Indexed Taxable Wage Base vs. Other States, 1979-2008:
Year: 1979;
U.S. overall: 0.47;
States with indexed base: 0.59;
Non-indexing states: 0.50.
Year: 1980;
U.S. overall: 0.45;
States with indexed base: 0.57;
Non-indexing states: 0.47.
Year: 1981;
U.S. overall: 0.42;
States with indexed base: 0.57;
Non-indexing states: 0.44.
Year: 1982;
U.S. overall: 0.41;
States with indexed base: 0.57;
Non-indexing states: 0.43.
Year: 1983;
U.S. overall: 0.43;
States with indexed base: 0.58;
Non-indexing states: 0.46.
Year: 1984;
U.S. overall: 0.43;
States with indexed base: 0.58;
Non-indexing states: 0.45.
Year: 1985;
U.S. overall: 0.42;
States with indexed base: 0.58;
Non-indexing states: 0.44.
Year: 1986;
U.S. overall: 0.41;
States with indexed base: 0.57;
Non-indexing states: 0.43.
Year: 1987;
U.S. overall: 0.40;
States with indexed base: 0.57;
Non-indexing states: 0.41.
Year: 1988;
U.S. overall: 0.39;
States with indexed base: 0.55;
Non-indexing states: 0.40.
Year: 1989;
U.S. overall: 0.39;
States with indexed base: 0.56;
Non-indexing states: 0.40.
Year: 1990;
U.S. overall: 0.38;
States with indexed base: 0.56;
Non-indexing states: 0.38.
Year: 1991;
U.S. overall: 0.37;
States with indexed base: 0.54;
Non-indexing states: 0.37.
Year: 1992;
U.S. overall: 0.36;
States with indexed base: 0.56;
Non-indexing states: 0.36.
Year: 1993;
U.S. overall: 0.36;
States with indexed base: 0.56;
Non-indexing states: 0.36.
Year: 1994;
U.S. overall: 0.36;
States with indexed base: 0.57;
Non-indexing states: 0.36.
Year: 1995;
U.S. overall: 0.35;
States with indexed base: 0.57;
Non-indexing states: 0.35.
Year: 1996;
U.S. overall: 0.34;
States with indexed base: 0.56;
Non-indexing states: 0.34.
Year: 1997;
U.S. overall: 0.33;
States with indexed base: 0.56;
Non-indexing states: 0.33.
Year: 1998;
U.S. overall: 0.32;
States with indexed base: 0.55;
Non-indexing states: 0.32.
Year: 1999;
U.S. overall: 0.32;
States with indexed base: 0.55;
Non-indexing states: 0.31.
Year: 2000;
U.S. overall: 0.31;
States with indexed base: 0.55;
Non-indexing states: 0.31.
Year: 2001;
U.S. overall: 0.30;
States with indexed base: 0.55;
Non-indexing states: 0.30.
Year: 2002;
U.S. overall: 0.30;
States with indexed base: 0.56;
Non-indexing states: 0.29.
Year: 2003;
U.S. overall: 0.29;
States with indexed base: 0.56;
Non-indexing states: 0.29.
Year: 2004;
U.S. overall: 0.29;
States with indexed base: 0.55;
Non-indexing states: 0.27.
Year: 2005;
U.S. overall: 0.29;
States with indexed base: 0.55;
Non-indexing states: 0.27.
Year: 2006;
U.S. overall: 0.28;
States with indexed base: 0.55;
Non-indexing states: 0.26.
Year: 2007;
U.S. overall: 0.27;
States with indexed base: 0.54;
Non-indexing states: 0.25.
Year: 2008;
U.S. overall: 0.27;
States with indexed base: 0.53;
Non-indexing states: 0.25.
Year: Change, 1979-2008;
U.S. overall: -0.20;
States with indexed base: -0.06;
Non-indexing states: -0.25.
Source: GAO calculations based on data from Unemployment Insurance
Financial Data Handbook, Employment and Training Administration,
Department of Labor.
[End of table]
Table 10: States with UI Solvency or Social Cost Taxes as of 2010:
State: Alabama;
Purpose of tax: Social cost;
State: Alaska;
Purpose of tax: Solvency;
State: Arkansas;
Purpose of tax: Solvency;
State: Colorado;
Purpose of tax: Solvency & social cost;
State: Delaware;
Purpose of tax: Solvency;
State: Illinois;
Purpose of tax: Solvency;
State: Louisiana;
Purpose of tax: Solvency & social cost;
State: Massachusetts;
Purpose of tax: Solvency;
State: Minnesota;
Purpose of tax: Solvency;
State: New Hampshire;
Purpose of tax: Solvency;
State: New Jersey;
Purpose of tax: Solvency;
State: New York;
Purpose of tax: Solvency.
State: Ohio;
Purpose of tax: Social cost.
State: Oklahoma;
Purpose of tax: Solvency.
State: Pennsylvania;
Purpose of tax: Solvency & social cost.
State: Rhode Island;
Purpose of tax: Solvency.
State: Texas;
Purpose of tax: Solvency & social cost.
State: Utah;
Purpose of tax: Social Cost.
State: Virginia;
Purpose of tax: Solvency & social cost.
State: Washington;
Purpose of tax: Solvency & social cost.
State: Wisconsin;
Purpose of tax: Solvency.
State: Wyoming;
Purpose of tax: Social Cost.
Source: ETA, Comparison of State Unemployment Insurance Laws, January
1, 2010.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Labor:
U.S. Department of Labor:
Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training:
Washington, D.C. 20210:
April 2, 2010:
Mr. Andrew Sherrill:
Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Sherrill:
The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is in receipt of the
draft Government Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled,
"Unemployment Insurance Trust Funds: Long-Standing State Financing
Policies Have Increased Risk of Insolvency" (GA0-10-440).
The report is both important and timely considering the serious crisis
facing the financing of state Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits,
which is putting at risk the ability of the UI system to act as an
effective stabilizer for the economy and may result in many states
reducing their UI benefit levels. The report also accurately focuses
on the role of state tax cuts as a leading cause in this crisis.
However, the report does not explore the complex relationships between
solvency, tax effort and differences in benefit adequacy. These are
crucial issues which need to be addressed.
Given the enormity of the predicted level of borrowing during the
current recession and the prolonged impact it will have on solvency
and program viability moving forward, it was very fitting that GAO is
pointing out the value of forward-funding for the program. GAO's
policy options to improve long-term trust fund financing are welcomed
by ETA, and we look forward to working with Congress and the states on
strategies that will move state UI trust funds towards solvency, and
to creating a system that will be more equitable among the states.
It is important to note, however, that there may be additional options
to address solvency concerns, including options for greater Federal
cost-sharing, such as full Federal payment of extended benefits and
various re-insurance models. We would also like to point out that the
option of having state tax rate adjustments occur more frequently than
on an annual basis may be inconsistent with the purported goal of
improving long-term trust fund financing. To enhance the forward-
funding operation of state tax systems, it is the level of rates that
is important rather than the speed of correction. The purpose of
lagging tax rate changes is to forestall any tax rate increases until
a recession has passed. The lack of forward-funding in this case has
produced the result that states are now faced with raising employer
taxes while the recession continues, a circumstance that would have
been avoided in great measure if there had been adequate forward-
funding measures implemented.
Enclosed are ETA's technical comments on the draft report. If you
would like additional information, please do not hesitate to call me
at (202) 693-2700.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Jane Oates:
Assistant Secretary:
Enclosures:
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Contact:
Andrew Sherrill (202) 512-7215 or sherrilla@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contacts above, Michael J. Collins, Mark M.
Glickman, Kristy Kennedy, Charles A. Jeszeck, Jessica A. Botsford,
Susan C. Bernstein, and James Bennett made important contributions to
this report.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Employee Misclassification: Improved Coordination, Outreach, and
Targeting Could Better Ensure Detection and Prevention. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-717]. Washington, D.C.: August 10,
2009.
Unemployment Insurance: More Guidance and Evaluation of Worker-
Profiling Initiative Could Help Improve State Efforts. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-680]. Washington, D.C.: June 14,
2007.
Human Service Programs: Demonstration Projects Could Identify Ways to
Simplify Policies and Facilitate Technology Enhancements to Reduce
Administrative Costs. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-942]. Washington, D.C.: Sept. 19,
2006.
Unemployment Insurance: States' Tax Financing Systems Allow Costs to
Be Shared among Industries. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-769]. Washington, D.C.: July 26,
2006.
Unemployment Insurance: Enhancing Program Performance by Focusing on
Improper Payments and Reemployment Services. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-696T]. Washington, D.C.: May 4,
2006.
Unemployment Insurance: Factors Associated with Benefit Receipt and
Linkages with Reemployment Services for Claimants. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-484T]. Washington, D.C.: March 15,
2006.
Unemployment Insurance: Factors Associated with Benefit Receipt.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-341]. Washington, D.C.:
March 7, 2006.
Unemployment Insurance: Better Data Needed to Assess Reemployment
Services to Claimants. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-413]. Washington, D.C.: June 24,
2005:
Unemployment Insurance: Survey of State Administrators and Contacts
with Companies Promoting Tax Avoidance Practices. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-819T]. Washington, D.C.: June 19,
2003.
Unemployment Insurance: States' Use of the 2002 Reed Act Distribution.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-496]. Washington, D.C.:
March 6, 2003.
Unemployment Insurance: Increased Focus on Program Integrity Could
Reduce Billions in Overpayments. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-697]. Washington, D.C.: July 12,
2002.
Unemployment Insurance: Role as Safety Net for Low-Wage Workers Is
Limited. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-181].
Washington, D.C.: December 29, 2000.
Unemployment Insurance: Program's Ability to Meet Objectives
Jeopardized. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HRD-93-107].
Washington, D.C.: September 28, 1993.
Unemployment Insurance: Trust Fund Reserves Inadequate to Meet
Recession Needs. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HRD-90-124]. Washington, D.C.: May 31,
1990.
Unemployment Insurance: Trust Fund Reserves Inadequate. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HRD-88-55]. Washington, D.C.:
September 26, 1988.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] The term "forward funding" usually refers to budget authority that
is made available for obligation beginning in the last quarter of the
fiscal year for the financing of ongoing activities (usually grant
programs) during the next fiscal year. GAO, A Glossary of Terms Used
in the Federal Budget Process, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-734SP] (September 2005). However,
in this report we use "forward funding" to refer to the practice of
states accumulating reserves in unemployment insurance trust funds in
anticipation of increased outlays in the future.
[2] Pub. L. No. 74-271.
[3] Some states allow for some workers who quit for certain work-
related or personal reasons to be eligible for UI benefits. The
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) Pub. L. No. 111-
5, Div. B, § 2003 authorized the Secretary of Labor to make
unemployment compensation modernization incentive payments to states
that amend their laws to allow UI payments to individuals who quit
employment for certain compelling family reason such as following
their spouse to a new job.
[4] We use the term "states" to refer to the administrative entities
of the 53 unemployment insurance programs that cover the 50 states,
the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
[5] Almost all wage and salary workers are covered by the UI program.
Federal civilian employees and ex-service members are covered under
separate programs administered by the states for the federal
government and paid for by the various federal agencies or military
departments. Railroad workers are covered under a program administered
by the Railroad Retirement Board.
[6] Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, Pub.
L. No. 91-373, Title II 26 U.S.C. § 3304, note.
[7] Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-252. As
provided in Pub. L. No. 111-144, the EUC08 program has been extended
through April 5, 2010.
[8] Under ARRA, as amended by Pub. L. No. 111-144, the federal
government is financing 100 percent of EB benefits through April 5,
2010. For more discussion of UI-related measures in ARRA, see appendix
II.
[9] Alaska, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania also withhold UI taxes from
employee wages.
[10] 26 U.S.C.§ 3301.
[11] 26 U.S.C. § 3302.
[12] GAO has conducted past reports on UI administrative funding and
problems states have had with funding technologies to improve the
efficiency and integrity in administering the program. See GAO, Human
Service Programs: Demonstration Projects Could Identify Ways to
Simplify Policies and Facilitate Technology Enhancements to Reduce
Administrative Costs, GAO-06-942 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 19, 2006);
and Unemployment Insurance: Increased Focus on Program Integrity Could
Reduce Billions in Overpayments, GAO-02-697 (Washington, D.C.: July
12, 2002).
[13] Title XII of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1321 - 1324.
[14] Labor exchange services include job search assistance, job
referral, placement assistance for job seekers, re-employment services
to UI claimants, and recruitment services to employers with job
openings.
[15] See GAO, Unemployment Insurance: States' Tax Financing Systems
Allow Costs to Be Shared Among Industries, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-769] (Washington, D.C.: July 2006),
for a more detailed discussion of experience rating. Some states levy
social cost taxes to recover uncollected benefit costs, such as those
paid to unemployed individuals but not charged to the firms for whom
the employers had worked. See table 10 in appendix IV for more details.
[16] The term Reed Act refers to a part of the Employment Security
Financing Act of 1954, Pub. L. No. 83-567. The provisions referred to
are found in Title IX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1101-
1110.
[17] 42 U.S.C. § 1103(c)(2).
[18] For more information on congressional changes to the Reed Act's
statutory ceilings, see Congressional Research Service, The
Unemployment Fund and Reed Act Distributions, RS22006 (Washington,
D.C.: Feb. 17, 2009).
[19] New Hampshire allows for quarterly adjustments to tax rates based
on quarterly measurements of the trust fund, and Tennessee can
activate 6-month tax schedules.
[20] 42 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2). In addition to repaying a loan by
September 30 the state may not have another advance during the
calendar year and must meet funding goals established under
regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor. The requirement that
Labor establish funding goals was added by the Balanced Budget Act of
1997 (Pub. L. No. 105-33, § 5404). Labor has published proposed rules
on funding goals which have yet to be finalized. See 74 Fed. Reg.
30,402 (June 25, 2009). ARRA provided that all loans from the federal
government are interest-free until December 31, 2010, 42 U.S.C. §
1322(b)(10) (as added by Pub. L. No. 111-5, Div. B, § 2004).
[21] See 26 U.S.C. § 3302(f).
[22] This rate of 13.5 percent or greater is for the most recent 12-
month period for which data are available.
[23] 42 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(9).
[24] Unless stated otherwise, in this report "total wages" are total
wages in UI-covered employment.
[25] National Commission on Unemployment Compensation, Unemployment
Compensation: Final Report (July 1980).
[26] GAO, Unemployment Insurance: Trust Fund Reserves Inadequate,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HRD-88-55] (Washington,
D.C.: Sept. 26, 1988).
[27] Federal State Unemployment Compensation System: A Study Prepared
by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 8, 1988).
[28] GAO, Unemployment Insurance: Program's Ability to Meet Objectives
Jeopardized, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HRD-93-107]
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 1993).
[29] Advisory Council on Unemployment Compensation, Defining Federal
and State Roles in Unemployment Insurance (Washington, D.C.:1996).
[30] The IUR is the average weekly number of insured workers divided
by the sum of average monthly UI-covered employment and average
monthly "reimbursable" employment, which includes the UI-covered
public and nonprofit sectors. A state's IUR is typically much lower
than its total unemployment rate because many unemployed workers do
not qualify for benefits, typically because of low applications,
eligibility denials, or benefit exhaustion.
[31] Duration figures reported by ETA equal the number of weeks
compensated during the year divided by the number of first payments.
The figures may include more than one period of continuous
unemployment. It excludes all unemployment for which no benefits were
paid, such as waiting periods, disqualifications, and any time after
exhaustion of benefits.
[32] Because total wage data are incomplete for 2009, we cannot yet
calculate this percentage.
[33] National Association of State Workforce Agencies (NASWA), UI
Trust Fund Solvency Survey (December 2009). Florida, Hawaii, Indiana,
and Massachusetts all took action in their 2010 legislative sessions
to limit the impact of scheduled rate increases.
[34] A state can avoid its employers' FUTA tax credit reduction for a
year by making repayments of a certain amount prior to November 9 of
that year. 26 U.S.C. § 3302(g).
[35] Although the government does not officially set dates for the
start and end of recessions, business cycle dates announced by the
National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Business Cycle Dating
Committee are widely accepted. While the committee does not set hard
criteria for defining recession, most of the periods defined this way
consist of two or more quarters of declining gross domestic product.
For more on NBER's process for determining business cycle dates, see
[hyperlink, http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions_faq.html]. While
NBER officially dates separate recessions beginning in 1980 and 1981,
we consider them as one economic event given the short period of
recovery between them. According to NBER, the recessions began in 1980
Q1, 1981 Q3, 1990 Q3, 2001 Q1, and 2007 Q4. Because of data
constraints, we use end-of-year HCM and IUR data for the 1980 and 1990
recessions, and quarterly data for the 2001 and 2007 recessions. We
categorized a state as a "borrowing" state if it had an unpaid end-of-
year loan balance to the federal government during the business cycle
starting with each recession. Additional states that we do not
categorize as a borrower may have received cash flow loans that they
repaid during the same calendar year as long as they had a zero loan
balance at the end of the year.
[36] Some states have indexed their taxable wage base for only certain
years from 1979 to 2010; others have raised and lowered their bases,
without indexing. We categorize states as indexing their wage base if
the base in a particular year exceeded the FUTA tax base and is
adjusted based on changes in average wages in the state.
[37] In 1982, Pub. L. No. 97-248 §271(c) amended 26 U.S.C.§ 3302(b),
increasing the state maximum rate to 5.4 percent effective in 1985.
[38] To ensure that all employers receive the maximum credit of 5.4
percent against the Federal payroll tax, all state laws provide for
assignment of a contribution rate of 5.4 percent or higher. Present
federal law permits reduced rates for newly subject employers or
employers with at least 1 year of experience with unemployment or
other factors bearing a direct relation to unemployment risk. As noted
in our 2006 report, the actual maximum tax rate in a state can change
from 1 year to the next, because of the use of different schedules or
changes in factors used to calculate a tax rate by formula. For
example, Massachusetts state law caps its maximum tax rate at 15.4
percent, but, as of July 2009, see the state had set the maximum rate
at 12.27 percent. For more information, see GAO, Unemployment
Insurance: States' Tax Financing Systems Allow Costs to Be Shared
among Industries, GAO-06-769 (Washington, D.C.: July 2006).
[39] DOL calculates a state's adequate financing rate by estimating
the tax rate that would be charged to all employers if there were no
experience rating. They assume the rate is equal to the amount needed
to cover benefit payments plus a solvency amount (based on what a
state would need to have in its trust fund to achieve an AHCM of 1).
[40] See U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Workforce Security,
Division of Fiscal and Actuarial Services, 2009: Significant Measures
of State UI Tax Systems (December 2009).
[41] The states who met or exceeded their adequate financing rates
from 2006-2009 were Maine, Mississippi, Montana, and New Mexico.
[42] The insured unemployment rate is calculated in terms of UI-
covered employment, while the total unemployment rate is calculated as
a percentage of the labor force.
[43] According to our 2007 report, there is some evidence that the
general decline in UI since the 1950s is partly explained by the
reduction in union employment--making workers less aware of benefits--
and the migration of manufacturing from high-benefit states to low-
benefit states--making applying for benefits less remunerative. For
more information, see GAO, Unemployment Insurance: Low-Wage and Part-
Time Workers Continue to Experience Low Rates of Receipt, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1147] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 7,
2007).
[44] States administer UI re-employment services to help claimants
obtain employment before exhausting UI benefits. These services can
impact UI trust fund levels by reducing the number of weeks claimants
receive benefits. See GAO, Unemployment Insurance: More Guidance and
Evaluation of Worker-Profiling Initiative Could Help Improve State
Efforts, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-680]
(Washington, D.C.: June 2007); Unemployment Insurance: Enhancing
Program Performance by Focusing on Improper Payments and Reemployment
Services, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-696T]
(Washington, D.C.: May 4, 2006); Unemployment Insurance: Factors
Associated with Benefit Receipt and Linkages with Reemployment
Services for Claimants, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-484T] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15,
2006); and Unemployment Insurance: Better Data Needed to Assess
Reemployment Services to Claimants, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-413] (Washington, D.C.: June 2005).
[45] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HRD-88-55] and
GAO, Unemployment Insurance: Program's Ability to Meet Objectives
Jeopardized, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HRD-93-107]
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 1993).
[46] Pub. L. No. 111-5, as amended by Pub. L. No. 111-144.
[47] For comparison, the taxable wage base for contributions to Social
Security, which is indexed to average wages, rose from $35,700 per
worker per year in 1983 to $102,000 in 2008, an increase of 186
percent.
[48] This calculation does not correct for any changes in the wage
distribution since 1983 that might affect the relationship between the
taxable wage base and total UI revenue collected each year.
[49] For more on experience rating and the impact on UI tax rates, see
GAO, Unemployment Insurance: States' Tax Financing Systems Allow Costs
to Be Shared among Industries, GAO-06-769 (Washington, D.C.: July
2006).
[50] These efforts might include challenging laid off employees'
eligibility to receive benefits, trying to get a new experience rating
by changing the identity of the company (perhaps through a sham sale
or new name), or declaring that a firm's employees are independent
contractors and therefore outside the UI system. See GAO, Unemployment
Insurance: Survey of State Administrators and Contacts with Companies
Promoting Tax Avoidance Practices, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-819T] (Washington D.C.: June 19,
2003), for more on this issue.
[51] 42 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2)(C). In the preamble to its proposed
regulations Labor described three approaches it considered involving
both solvency and tax effort criteria states would have to meet in
order to qualify for interest-free "cash flow" advances. In one
approach, a state would need to maintain an AHCM of 1.0 in at least 1
of the 5 years prior to obtaining a loan and, for each year between
the last year in which the solvency goal was met and the year of the
potential loan, need to collect unemployment taxes (measured as a
percentage of total wages) of at least 80 percent of the prior year's
rate; and the tax rate would have to be at least as high as 75 percent
of the percentage of benefits paid out. A second approach would set
only the solvency requirement, not the tax effort condition, and a
third approach would define the solvency standard as a reserve ratio
of 1.7 percent instead of an AHCM of 1.0. After reviewing all three
approaches, DOL selected the first one to include in its proposed
rule. See Employment and Training Administration, 20 CFR Part 606,
"Federal- State Unemployment Compensation (UC) Program; Funding Goals
for Interest-Free Advances; Proposed Rule," 74 Fed. Reg. 30,402 (June
25, 2009). DOL officials told us that they plan to issue a final rule
in June 2010, but may not implement the rule for a few years.
[52] Pub. L. No. 111-5.
[53] Congress extended EUC, increased weekly benefits, and full
funding of EB through February 28, 2010 (Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2010 Pub. L. No. 111-118, December 19, 2009) and
then enacted another extension through April 5, 2010 (Temporary
Extension Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-144, Mar. 2, 2010).
[54] A state may delay the effective date of a provision to qualify
for an incentive payment up to 12 months.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: